Monday, January 4, 2016

From Bob Wright: "Why Bunkerville was so right and Burns is so wrong."

Why Bunkerville was so right and Burns is so wrong.
A brief statement on the situation in Burns, OR.
I am not against armed intervention and civil disobedience by citizens to address grievous wrongs perpetrated by government at any level. Over the years I have organized and/or participated in a number of “armed“interventions to tell one level of government or another that they could not do a certain thing. I supported what happened at Bunkerville because of the clear, undeniable evil and malice that was present there. A small ranching family surrounded by dozens of hired killers, military style equipment being brought to bear, snipers aiming rifles at women, and the killing and maiming of cattle. The right and wrong of the situation was not bound up in common law mumbo-jumbo or saddle seat dissertations on the intent of the founders. It was so startlingly clear in its malignance and arrogance that it compelled the reaction that culminated in the panicked rout of the Fed's hired killers. The acceptance of the action by most of the country was based far more on the clear repudiation of the pending murder raid, than an active support of Bundy’s claims, the overall land use issues or any deep understanding of Constitutional law. It is also my belief, that the efforts were successful because of its righteousness. It was a clear case of good vs. evil; it was blessed by heaven.
Here is my thinking on Burns/Hammond situation, and why Burns is not Bunkerville.
The Bundy’s have a legitimate claim that they have had grazing rights all the way back to before there was a BLM and that they should be grandfathered on many of the crucial points of contention. The immediate cause of the problem at Bundy's was the contention that the man should give up a chunk of his business in order to protect a turtle.
Not so in the Hammond Case. I have seen no evidence that the Hammonds had ever contested BLM jurisdiction until they got in trouble over the fires.
Bundy was accused of not paying grazing fees for the use of the land, while true, he did say he would pay the county, as the land belongs to them and not the Feds.
The Hammonds were convicted (rightly or wrongly, is not relevant to this section) of arson, sentenced and served their appointed time. The Feds appealed the judge’s decision to go light on the sentences and invoked the terror laws to implement minimum sentencing.
The Bundy’s were facing an immediate threat to life and limb. There is no indication that the Hammonds faced any sort of physical threat.
When one moves into the realm of armed intervention there must be a clear reason for the armed intervention. All claims about being peaceful made with a gun in your hand clearly communicate that your peaceful intentions are predicated on your opposition not crossing some line that you have established. The weapon is a threat not to cross that line. Ask yourself, "Does this case warrant the use of armed intervention?" Even the Hammonds say, "No". Remember that the Hammonds said, "NO!"
The position that this is the wrong place for this type of action is bolstered by the fact that most of the local Militias and regional organizations respected the Hammond's wishes and left or stayed to run a peaceful rally. The certainty that even those who are doing this thing knew it was wrong is supported by the fact that they did not coordinate this with any of the local groups or regional associations but have, in fact, acted unilaterally. I don’t think it is unfair to surmise that the reason for this lack of coordination was their understanding that the groups would not have supported them. I wonder if ego has not overridden good sense here. Everyone came to rescue a man who would not be rescued. Unable to deal with that rejection, I wonder if this was not an attempt to “save face” or perhaps assure themselves that they are still relevant.
The siege at Bunkerville was a marvelous event. The final act was glorious to watch. It must have been hard for the participants to contain their feelings as the Fed killers beat a panicked retreat from the assemblage of determined Americans. It was a life changing event for many who were there. And, therein, may lay a problem. I have some experience with a veteran of the Bunkerville Stand-off and for him it is the seminal event of not only his life, but for all of the Patriot movement, past present and future. He spews forth contempt and profanity laden explosions of vicious desperation on any who were not at the Nevada confrontation. It was the event that transformed him. A time when he was greater than he had ever been before, serving a cause, selflessly, that was way bigger than himself. He is justified in much of his appreciation of his efforts, as so many have never found the courage to make that stand. But it has not made him a better man or patriot. He seems intent on finding again that feeling of victory that Bundy put into his heart. Growing ever angrier that another opportunity has not materialized to put him back into that heady atmosphere of shared danger for a noble cause, he has withdrawn and attacks all other Patriots who do not share his desperate need to recreate the Great Bundy Siege. He does not realize that situations as clear as the Bundy Stand-off CANNOT be manufactured for the satisfaction of the participants. Any attempt to create the situation will fail, as it has in Burns. For them Bunkerville is the only event of defiance to tyranny. However to those like me, who is in his fifth decade of resistance, Bunkerville was just one incident, albeit a truly magnificent one, but still just one of dozens of incidences over those decades that have helped to resurrect and nurture this spirit of resistance now coming to full bloom in the land .
I believe that the actions at Burns have been ill considered, ill-advised and disastrously implemented. It makes no sense to most in our movement and will make far less to John Q. Public. Its timing is so damn bad that one has to wonder if a federally controlled person inside that group has not manipulated this to happen right before our Usurper-in-Chief is set to begin a real war on guns.
All of that said, we must make sure all understand that as ill-advised as this was, it is no worse in its effect than any of the Occupy protests of a couple of years ago. I’m betting it will not be anywhere near as destructive to the facility as the Occupy folks were at every location they protested. Let's make sure that our elected officials understand that we expect the same amount of patience and restraint granted to these protesters as was given to those Occupy freaks. We must not allow this foolishness to divide a movement that has struggled for unity. We must no longer tolerate the loudmouths who advocate precipitous actions that pay no benefit to the cause of Restoration of the Republic. This may make Ammon and the others feel good, but I fear its cost to the movement may be staggering.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Hammonds have been raped by the federal government, I guess just not raped bad enough for the author.

The "Justus" system in this country is irreparably broken, and some in the Liberty camp are still telling us to either respect it or have faith in it.

The statement from Oregon/Idaho III%ers....

"They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process."

The rule of law, due process and the Constitution were defecated upon by the Feds in the Hammond case.

Jim Klein said...

"Let's make sure that our elected officials understand that we expect the same amount of patience and restraint granted to these protesters as was given to those Occupy freaks."

Yes, let's. And let us never forget for a moment whose property it is.


"...but I fear its cost to the movement may be staggering."

"Fear is a liar," almost always. Besides, there's nothing but individuals out there. That's what "the movement" is all about.

manny silva said...

Let's just hope this isn't a two-for-one event. The Feds can go back and blame the Bundy's as radicals in support of terrorists, take their ranch, wipe the egg off of their face, give the land to Harry Reid and his son who have connections to Chinese government for a solar farm; and of course, the Hammond's ranch because of all the gas, Uranium, Arsenic, and Mercury deposits. The people be damned! There will be no rebellion! The government will bide its time and squash any resistance. If you ever stand for anything, don't expect anybody to be there. You will die alone. The Republic is lost!

WarriorClass III said...

Very well said. Given the daily indoctrination the young people receive in the government-run day-prisons euphemistically called education, the cause must be that clear-cut good vs. evil that hopefully even they can understand. This current situation isn't it, and even Ammon Bundy knows this on some level or else he would have been honest about his intentions instead of hiding them.

Anonymous said...

Right on.

Anonymous said...

These men were treated like terrorist for a domestic crime. I do not agree with the occupation of the federal facility but the charging under terrorism fir a domestic arson does concern me. The referenced story has some good background on the charges.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html

Excerpt
When the men were indicted in 2010 on federal arson charges, they faced sentencing under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Some Hammond backers and a host of recent social media posts translated that to mean the Hammonds were treated as terrorists.

"When you starting bringing in the terrorism act for God-fearing livestock producers in eastern Oregon, something is wrong," said Barry Bushue, a Multnomah County berry farmer and president of the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Federal prosecutors say they did no such thing.

"At no time have I ever called these two men terrorists. Never," Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last October. "They committed arson."

But the five-year sentence mandated by terrorism law also concerned people. Among the critics: the federal judge who presided over the Hammonds' trial in Pendleton.

U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan said at the men's original sentencing in 2012 that such a term would be unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.

"It would be a sentence which would shock the conscience," Hogan said before sentencing Dwight to three months and Steve to one year.

The men served their time and went home to raise cattle. But their case, it turned out, was far from settled.

Amanda Marshall, then U.S. attorney for Oregon, said she recommended the government challenge Hogan's sentence as illegal.

"If the government stands by and doesn't pursue the statutorily mandated sentence in this case, what kind of precedent does that set?" Marshall asked. Hogan, she said, imposed "an unlawful sentence."

Papagni, the federal prosecutor, said in court last fall that "the government did what we are supposed to do when someone doesn't follow the law, be it a judge or be it two ranchers in eastern Oregon."

The solicitor general at the U.S. Justice Department authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge's order.

The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds trooped to federal court last October to face a second sentencing.

Family and supporters filled the Eugene courtroom and U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken gave the two convicted ranchers a chance to speak.

"I have nothing to say," Steve Hammond said.

"I have got nothing to say," Dwight Hammond said.

"Really?" the judge asked. "That's so unusual."

She sentenced them to prison to finish five-year terms but left them free until after the holidays.

Anonymous said...

"There is no indication that the Hammonds faced any sort of physical threat."

They've been to jail already once (the son for an entire year). The dad is elderly and looking @ 5 years! After serving time already.

eddyIII said...

Well said!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the law of unintended consequences needs to a pay a visit to Papagni and Amanda Marshall. Since the Hammonds are seemingly okay with the sentence though, it's not our battle.

Anonymous said...

Good analysis but in the end it is splitting hairs. Burn clearly is ill-advised but when does war go perfectly? This is another battle for liberty and it may help distract and disrupt an ultra-virulent Obama administration. If we look at the opposite end of the spectrum, Congressional Republicans, who appear to be happy to take any action to buy time for Obama to go away, I'll take someone who starts making some noise and breaking some windows right now. No need for everyone to get involved in it emotionally or physically, but the govt's reaction can be watched and monitored and this has tactical value for the future.

Jim Klein said...

"The Hammonds have been raped by the federal government...

Whew...there's the whole Hammond story anyway, in less than one sentence.

Doug said...

It is said this situation is a "powder keg", well golly gee, this entire republic is a powder keg. If no one hasn't noticed, we are involved in an armed resurrection and the only thing missing is bullets in the air. It matters not if those guys up in Burn's are right or wrong, it is the aggregate that must be considered, because it is the aggregate of tyranny and corruption of our government, the consequences of its, and its actors who have created the atmosphere of armed and unarmed rebellion and resistance to tyranny.
Events are going to leave a lot of us in the dust, and that includes you Mike, and Bob Wright, and me, almost everyone of us. We will be lucky to have a resemblance of a republic before this year is out.

The veneer of force and violence of the state is very thin. It has a preponderance of illusion of potential use of force. Once the armed civilians begin to coalesce around common cause and fight back just as violently that veneer of police powers is kaput. And this is what it is about. It is a showdown. It has nothing to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of those guys in Burns, it is the logical continuation of Bunkersville. Set up or not, agent provocateurs or not, serendipity or deliberate, it doesn't matter. The Rubicon has been crossed.

I find it degrading, insulting to my very core all this talk of wether those guys are legitimate. Ah excuse me here, those are our friends, our countrymen, our fellow Freemen. Do we abandon them? What gives here? What is this talk of refusing solidarity. When do we make a stand on our principles and virtues? we would not be in this situation but for the sonofabitches running things. What is with you Mike? And you Bob Wright? you make me feel soiled for believing in you guys and look up to your leadership. It is time to redeem yourselves and right damn quick. Your milquetoast commentary stinks of resistance is futile.
Those are our fellow patriots up there for God's sake!
Your going to abandon them?
This isn't a lost opportunity, its a gift from heaven. Those fellows have done nothing wrong. That property belongs to WE THE PEOPLE they are occupying. They have legitimate beef with the heavy handed police state tactics of what the BLM and every branch of this regime in power is doing to destroy or very way of life. They are risking it all on those principles of not one more step backwards.
And you guys are sullying their courage and resolve.
WTF?

Anonymous said...

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/03/full-story-on-whats-going-on-in-oregon-militia-take-over-malheur-national-wildlife-refuge-in-protest-to-hammond-family-persecution/

It seems clear to me the Hammonds are worn down after years of fighting Goliath. Should we then let them be thrown under the bus and lose their ranch?

It is concerning there may be a provocateur amongst the well meaning 'militia' members on site.


I pray it ends without loss of life and the Hammonds get some relief.

But if the III movement is serious about no more free Wacos, I'm afraid it will end in CW2...

Anonymous said...

There is no indication that the Hammonds faced any sort of physical threat.

Ummmm, the Constitution is clear about life and limb being endangered by judicial action. So much so, there is to be no such thing as a retrial.

I tel ya, wathing people hedge back and forth, this way and that, all trying to create a "loophole' to escape through no matter which way something goes is, to me, the very core of what is so wrong with this country today.

Folks are to scared to commit to their own principles.
And that leaves them without any principles, just the idea that they might have some, maybe, kind of, in the right circumstances, if they come along, someday.

The federal government is out of control, wait, is acting outside clear constitutional boundaries.
State governments are out of control, wait, are acting outside of constitution boundaries.

There is no legitimate claim to the contrary. The reason it is true is because We The People are trained to find a reason NOT to stand up to that blatant usurpation.
So trained are people that they think saying they have Liberty is enough.

Now go beg for those permission slips folks, and ummmm, berate anyone who tells you how foolish it is to do that. Deride anyone who stands firm for any reason - for they are the "real" problem.....or something. Gotta wait for the perfect test case...somewhere.....sometime.....maybe.

If not now, when? If not this, then what? If not there, then where?
Never, nothing, nowhere. Ever. Now take your crosses down, muslim refugees are not to be offended! Besides, you need a permission slip for those crosses anyways!

The Jester said...

All one needs to do to understand the reasons and simple plan of Ammon Bundy is to watch the video he put on youtube on New Years day entitled, "Dear Friends:" Ammon Bundy Responds to Stewart Rhodes' Statement Re: The Hammonds... NEXT watch the video he put on youtube recorded at the scene of the wildlife refuge entitled, "Militia members outline their plan".

Ammon Bundy is exemplifying leadership at this moment. He is not claiming to be the leader of every American or of every patriot. His loving relationship with the Hammonds led to a deep empathy that led him to prayer and he was inspired from within to take the measures he did. He did not need to run it by "the movement" or its erstwhile or supposed leaders. He apparently spoke with those in Burns who he believed might be moved by his idea and then asked "who is with me"? Then proceeded to lead the way, for better or worse, to occupy the refuge and initiate a plan according to the vision he had received prior.

All the armchair quarterbacking in the world will not change that, and may even be detrimental. I have listened now to too many who opine that they have a grand vision for "the movement", who are certain that some tipping point will be reached in "the future" where unlawful tyrant types will transgress to such an extent that "everyone" will "get on board" and there will be maximum advantage. Meanwhile, families like the Hammonds, and others, are literally torn apart in the most heinous and traumatic of fashion, but the "big picture" analysts find some weak link, some technical factor that does not mesh with their fantasy "tipping point moment", and they hold off from action.

Ammon Bundy was moved beyond such considerations by the plight of a family so abused and hopelessly beaten that they have literally given up as their abuser snickers at the "patriot movement" and moves on to their next victim. He is taking a stand in a unique and novel way that seems to baffle and confound all the most careful of strategists and tacticians. That is usually a sign of the motions of the Holy Ghost. To say how great a degree of divine inspiration is a fools errand as such things unfold of their own accord toward a greater end. The Holy Ghost has historically utilized Ryan Payne and Pete Santilli types in such dramatic moments to serve a purpose in ways that may seem counterintuitve at the time. So it would be a shame if the most respected leading voices among patriotic Americans continue to be so harsh and certain with their criticism of what one good man was moved to do by his conscience. IF YOU CAN'T BACK HIM IN PERSON ON THE GROUND IT IS BEST TO BACK HIM TO THE HILT RHETORICALLY FOR THE TIME MAY COME THAT YOU ARE SO MOVED TO BE AN ACTUAL LEADER WHO TAKES A STAND LOCALLY AND SPONTANEOUSLY COME WHAT MAY BY THE GRACE OF GOD. So please set the example now and find the good in what Ammon has done like Mike V. seems to have been able to do and hold your tongues on the rest.

Jester

Anonymous said...

.gov an all those who suck from it's tit need to be careful, not everything is as it appears.

Anonymous said...

Even if the feds move in with force and blood is shed, there won't be any insurrection or civil war. You are dreaming.

B-4 said...

This judge is gavel-ling beyond his powers. Forcing your beliefs onto armed men is a very unwise decision that will lead to armed confrontation. When this dust clears no matter how this ends it will be the beginning of the end for .gov. The community organizer is about to learn a lesson the Brits learned long ago as "Rulers". 97% of the sheep will set this one out, again.
B-4

Steve Ramsey said...

To all those that support this action, I would pose a question:

Would you be in favor gathering a large armed force, and conducting an operation to liberate the Hammond menfolk from whatever federal lockup they are in?

Because this occupation action is really no different for the moral purist correct?

Ammon Bundy exploited the Hammond's for his own cause, his own agenda. It doesn't matter if his cause is right or wrong. He's attempting to hijack the entire patriot movement to serve HIM. He believes he has the correct strategy, and thinks we should participate in a general uprising in support of it.

As a decedent of confederates, some who died in battle and some who survived I can tell you this:

The confederacy was depending on sympathy and direct intervention from England and France at the outset. That was a bad supposition to make, even though their cause was just.

You line up your support and marshal your forces first. NEVER depend on your ability to hoodwink others to your cause.

greg forward said...

As a former "Occupy freak", I support this message. Perhaps we should stop making it about you vs. I, and make it about US v. them.

Anonymous said...

"He does not realize that situations as clear as the Bundy Stand-off CANNOT be manufactured for the satisfaction of the participants."

And that, Boys and Girls, is evidence of why Bob Wright is a leader who has earned the respect of others, rather than one who demands it.

tjbbpgobIII said...

Amen to Ann.@ 8:36 am. I wondered myself about that statement of no harm, no foul. Prison is a harmful place whether it is one month or a year. The father in this case may well have just been put to death at his age. This is a sentence even more than third time burglars are liable to get. We must remember though, these men stand convicted of terrorism, which is more than will be charged of any true moooslum terroist.

Anonymous said...

If the prosecution's case is true, they DID commit purposeful arson to cover up illegal deer killing. Knowingly burning federal land. If this is true, they have them earned their stay at the gray bar hotel.

Amon Bundy is an idiot.....

Anonymous said...

Here is another take on the BLM and FWS actions in eastern Oregon over the decades. These Fed agencies are out of control and truly want it ALL. The question is why, because this amount of evil is never some benign, squishy do-gooder crap. There is a larger agenda moving inexorably.

Anonymous said...

Kudos for Bob Wright. He is a real thinker. He has my vote for general for the Joint Staff of the Militia of the Several States.

He is absolutely right that the application of armed civil disobedience cannot be ambiguous, because everyone is going to have to pay the bill if it goes south, and the average American has to know immediately what is righteous.

He rightly states that the issue has to be vetted at the local level. Outsiders are not an option.

We should not jump into a fight that is badly timed, ill-conceived, and touted by people of questionable motives (and perhaps, too emotional to see a larger picture).

We need to be smart and pick our battles.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Bob makes some excellent points.

But as someone has already mentioned, "Fear is a liar."

And in this case, the lie is that we are somehow to blame for what the agents, covert or not, of th unconstitutional Federal regime are doing here. We're not crazy, they are deliberately gas-lighting us.

And it seems to be working. But let me tell you, when I abandon any remaining claims to sanity, I'm going to make damn sure the entire world regrets pushing me that far.

Gun-control? Guns are for sane self-defense. They make me crazy, and I'm killing everyone.

Nemesis said...

I think a counter to this very well thought out response to what is now occurring in Oregon could be this: How many Hammonds will continue to go quietly off to prison when a tyrannical government decides that their original sentence that was served - and that sentence based on fascist ecological thinking that places humans second to their god Gaia - did not suit the Federal government's own fascist laws?

How many Hammonds will decide to become martyrs to tyranny rather than make a stand, and for which they have every right to, before those who watch and who may in some future time become victims themselves to the tyranny now so readily on display, decide to act?

How many Hammonds will have to be persecuted until it is widely realized that the Federal govt. will now do as it pleases against any Hammond, and for every Hammond that the Feds set up there will be even more Hammonds targeted?

When it comes your time, are you willing to become a Hammond?

I believe Bunkerville was a test case designed by the Feds to gauge the reaction of Patriots to their land grabbing and for other set piece scenarios. but the Feds have a bigger scenario planned, much bigger, and when one takes into account the training of Jade Helm and the 'riot control' training of the military, the militarization of police forces and all the United Nations 'laws' that have been signed onto, then one must also consider what it is that the Feds are gearing up for.

Perhaps those fellows now holed up in a shack in Oregon have already figured that out and have chosen this moment to make their stand. Has anyone yet bothered to have a deep and meaningful conversation with those who believe they are making the right decision to gauge their true personal reasons for doing so?

Dakota said...

As usual Bob has gotten to the heart of the matter and used his wisdom and experience to attempt appealing to those that have no experience or are looking for a fight. It will be interesting to see which one of the front talkers are the Federal provocateur. I think I know anyway.

T. Paine said...

So when is enough overreach, tyranny and threats against person and property enough? No more free Waco's, no more free Ruby Ridge's.

Mark Tyree said...

I think a lot of patriots are waiting for the clean, black and white moral crusade to appear before they'll get behind it. I don't think such an animal ever existed nor ever will. You win, then you explain why you were righteous. I think southern secession was righteous enough by the simple fact that the states no longer wanted to be part of the union. Full stop. The South lost, have been demonized since. Farther back, the Colonists fought the war of independence. To this day, revisionists spend thousands upon thousands of words explaining how it was an immoral war and unjust. Regardless of whether the causes for American independence were just or not, it doesn't matter, they won and the Brits lost.

Looking for the perfect moral crusade to stand against the federal government isn't going to happen. Ever. The only thing that is important is that you back the winning team.

Heidi Hansing said...

I would say being forcibly stripped of your liberty is a physical threat. Our Founding Fathers would say it's clearly a threat.

James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution' said: "Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."

I'd say we're there now. An excess of power has prevailed.

Sanders Household said...

Although the Federal Government actions afford no threat to the Hammonds' life or health, their threat is to the Hammonds' liberty and property, which the Founders considered sacrosanct. This is a case of double jeopardy, not the kind Alex Trebek hosts!

Anonymous said...

This is a great time for the Feds to arrest Clive Bundy.

Anonymous said...

I'm ok with one more Waco, in this case.

The Jester said...

The Hammonds were not poaching deer in the felonious sense of the term "poach". Due to the inept "management" of the BLM, the inordinate restrictions on hunting on the vast tracts of land under their charge, especially "wildlife refuges", lead to proliferation of animals including deer who reproduce like rabbits. As a result, the Hammonds ranching lifestyle was threatened from yet another angle. Competition for feed for their cattle. After all, the real BLM plan has been proven to vacate forcibly all ranchers and then frack and mine the hell out of that land for it's rich gas and mineral resources to sell to China. I wonder how all the deer will fare then?

Also, for those who claim there is no threat to the Hammond's life or health, how do they think a 75 year old man who has been through so much incredible abuse and trauma will hold up for 5 years in Federal prison? And how will the health of the ladies hold up as they are forced to manage the land and business operations without their beloveds for 5 years, with NO MONEY to invest in hiring help because the BLM is raping them for another quarter million dollars?

Honestly it is a travesty that they had no neighbors who were willing to stand up for them long ago, but that is the state of our once great Republic.

Chiu ChunLing said...

On the subject of "average Americans", the average American is going to be dead before this is over no matter how this plays out. The global economy has collapsed, and two thirds of the existing American population are going to die as a result, sooner or later (this is much better than the numbers elsewhere).

There is nothing we can do for the "average American" at this point other than pity them in passing. We cannot waste any further concern for those who simply cannot be saved.

manny silva said...

I think the discussion here is the beginning of the end for the federal government! We are all recounting the many abuses of our countrymen. The Hammonds are just one of the latest examples. Here is the thing: if anyone wants to join the fight now you will be respected. Do as the spirit moves you to! If the intention is to prevail, standing in formation against a heavily armed force is certain slaughter!! As in the American Revolution, guerilla warfare is the only way to defeat an enemy of this size. That means, when the abuse is overwhelmingly egregious enough, each man that engages will engage in his respective areas with small trusted groups! Strike and move. Continue inflicting damage throughout the country in so many places that the government is overwhelmed and then collapses!! Is the Hammond issue that spark? I personally do not believe it to be. Ponder the consequences because once you go down this road...which is inevitable...there is no turning back! Death or Liberty are the only two outcomes. The human struggle for Liberty is long and bloody!

Anonymous said...

Well said & written Bob.

First, the Hammonds were not charged as terrorists and it's no where in the court docs. The "terrorism" in this situation is that their mandatory minimum sentencing was based on guidelines created in the 70's for the eco-terrorists who were burning federal land. As a matter of FACT - the only time the Hammonds have been called terrorists publically is by the Bundy's and people using their names for their own supposed patriotic causes.

Someone today, who is on the Bundy side, asked me what else could've been done. That he's bringing this "situation" of federal over-reach regarding our lands into the lime light and I told them - the march for the Hammonds was peaceful and the rally was just enough to get everyone's juices flowing over the issue.

Then they should have moved over to Owyhee and had a HUGE demonstration there because Obama is getting ready to take ALL that grazing land and turn it into a national monument. All those ranchers over there will lose everything. People who have 100 year leases for cabins could lose them. And the BLM, who HAS had control of that land and let the ranchers use it, also loses control. And it's not our little national refuge, it's 2.5 MILLION acres of our land - WE THE PEOPLE'S land. That's where the fight is. Bring that to the forefront and then go back and shine the light on the land already taken because the fight for the land the Hammonds own and the ranchers being pushed out of the Krumbo Resevoir - that's almost 40 years old.

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing - There are 192 cases, just like the Hammonds, being reviewed to send people who have already served "some" time back to prison to finish mandatory minimum sentences. That's where a fight is.

There are so many issues but both of these could have been addressed and made THAT a national spotlight. Then they wouldn't look like whack jobs.

As for Ammon Bundy - this was never about the Hammonds and it's not about the land. In front of reporters it's about giving the land back to the people - the ranchers, the loggers, the miners. In his own video he wants to build up an army and use this as a stronghold. A place where patriots come to live. He invites all the patriots to come live here. And do what? There are no jobs here. Isn't that one of his bitches?

We have 3 fast food establishments. I'm leaving out the other businesses like offices and such businesses because clearly anyone who would jump in their car loaded for bear on the basis of a video that someone put out without checking a SINGLE fact is clearly not going to get a better job.

Hasn't Bundy done what he's accusing the fed of? He's stolen land from the fed to NOT give back to the people to use but to use for HIS own purpose and to dole out as HE sees fit.

I live here. He is not my messiah and he does NOT speak for me.

Anonymous said...

Doug said.... "The Rubicon has been crossed."

Yes it has. Has anyone war-gamed this out or are we still in the emotional shock and hand-wringing phase?

Anonymous said...

Leroy Jenkins comes to mind. Look it up if you don't know about L.J.

The Jester said...

According to this notarized affidavit, they were absolutely charged as terrorists in 2012 under the Federal Anti-Terrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996, after being railroaded into Federal court 5 years after the State of Oregon dropped all charges against the Hammonds for the 2006 backburn fire. In 2012 the Fed Judge manipulated the case and ordered half a million $ fine, while refusing to sentence them to the minimum prison time calling it "cruel and unusual". BUT he left the door open for the Witch Amanda Marshall (OR State Attny) to follow Obama's marching orders and appeal the sentencing of the case in 2015, where another Witch, Judge Ann Aiken gave them 5 years FOR TERRORISM under the 1996 act. Shortly after arranging for this travesty, Amanda Marshall was investigated by the DOJ for stalking a co-worker, and quit her post citing "Health Concerns".

from the Affidavit-

In 2010, five (5) days before the Statute of Limitations expired; almost five (5) years after the 2006 fire, the Office of U.S. Federal Court Attorney Frank Papagni notified Dwight in writing that Papagni was charging Dwight with “Terrorism” under the Federal Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in the case of the 2006 backfire and the 2001 grass burn; charges vastly different from the original State charges of 2006.

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Pendleton Division in Eastern Oregon assumed jurisdiction over the trial of both Dwight and Steven.

During June 12th through June 21, 2012, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan disallowed time for certain evidence, i.e., the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management & Preservation Act of 2000. Prosecution used most of the allotted trial time; Hogan disallowed an extension of time to present evidence of the Steens Act which evidence would have exonerated both Steven and Dwight.

Papagni was given full use of six (6) trial days for prosecution. Dwight's Attorney Mark Blackman was allowed one (1) trial day for defense; which prevented facts of the fires, historical land management and intentions of Steven’s actions from entering the trial record or being heard by the jury. The Judge allowed evidence as to whether Steven and Dwight started the fires; but, not as to their intent in doing so.

Papagni called Dwight’s grandson, Steven’s nephew, Dusty Hammond to testifyHogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible; nevertheless, Hogan allowed the testimony.

During jury selection, Hogan and Papagni selected jurors unfamiliar with the customs and culture of ranchers; and, how land is managed in Eastern Oregon; Jurors traveled to/from Pendleton each day; some more than four (4) hours round trip; by trial day eight (8), jurors were exhausted; expressed desires to be home.

On the final trial day, Hogan pressed for a verdict; several times during deliberation, Hogan pressed for a decision; Hogan never apprised the jury as to the punishment that could be imposed for a conviction under the 1996 Terrorist Act.

On June 22, 2012, the Jury found Dwight and Steven guilty of starting the fires. Hogan sentenced Dwight and Steven under Arsonist Terrorist charges; which carry a minimum sentence of five (5) years; Hogan, in overruling the minimum sentence, commented, “If full five (5) years were required, it would be in violation of the 8th Amendment.” [prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment] Hogan sentenced Dwight to three (3) months in prison; and, Steven to one (1) year and one (1) day in prison.

AFFIDAVIT AT LINK

https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/12_15_31_hammond_affidavit_p1-4_notarized_imp_or-d-1.pdf

Amanda Marshall info. Including possible personal vendetta against the Hammonds from her time in the Child Advocate's office.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/

Anonymous said...

Someone wearing sunglasses with a cigarette dressed like a bad guy from a cheap movie explains why the optics are bad for Burns.
Armed? maybe if in Baltimore and Chicago the police didn't have guns (which they use to kill), they would be far more peaceful as having a gun is provocative. What is true collectively of that building is equally true individually of your homestead - what purpose do those "non-hunting" arms serve - shouldn't law enforcement be safe when breaking in your front door with a SWAT team because of an unpaid ticket? How dare you draw and defend a line.

James Carter said...

Well you have Baltimore and Ferguson. Then you have American ranchers. Who are the terrorist? See, it's not about the Bundy's or the Hammond's. It's about our way of life. Remember in Harlen County there are several other ranchers facing Federal government overreach as well. The bigger picture is "The Wildlands Project" under the Agenda 21 process. Please, feel free to research this ideal. Where or when do we draw the line.