Armed Militia Takes Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 221 - 240 of total 2571 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:12am PT
It must suck living in your reality

No, really it must suck to live in a "reality" in which you feel the need to turn a discussion into such a comment.

And, really, there are more options than you list.

Furthermore, your number 2 is a non-starter and incredibly naive from an individual perspective! Until people wake up to the evils of the Patriot Act, the massive surveillance-state empowerment that was embedded into this latest federal budget, and what "terrorism" means to the feds, a few people individually "petitioning congress" is useless. The only hope is raising awareness until "enough" people are making it an issue to candidates up for election/reelection that congress quits playing the games it is playing.

Online discussions like this are just one piece of that puzzle.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:12am PT
madbolter posted
That's an amazingly low bar. You pretty much can't spit on the sidewalk without causing $100 in damage. So, pretty much, you can be charged with a felony and do 10 years in federal pen for bending a blade of grass.

Madbolter: secret acid-spitting alien
Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:21am PT
Madbolter: secret acid-spitting alien

An encephalopod maybe.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:26am PT
Wow. Just wowwww

Holy intentionally missing the obvious point, Batman.

Yeah, and "we're" going to get "together" against a federal government run amok?

Yeah, right. I guess, just hope that YOU never accidentally run afoul of its ire, because you cannot count on your "fellow citizens" for ANY help. They will apparently just tell you, "Well, you did bend a blade of grass, so do your 10 years, pay your quarter-million fine, and quit complaining!"

**First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
**
dirtbag

climber
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:30am PT
Oh the drama!
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:31am PT
I'm actually impressed. I assumed that all the Repubs would dodge the sh#t out of this.

Ted Cruz tells Oregon’s militant protesters to “stand down peaceably”
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:38am PT
madbolter posted
**First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Who will save Madbolter from the ill chasm of Godwin's Law?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 4, 2016 - 10:57am PT
How come when the government exploits and assaults people of color (i.e. Ferguson)

Remind me, again, the nature of the exploitation in Ferguson. All I saw was a bunch of people on ST who decided they knew the "facts" before any real determination of those facts. Last I saw, the objective evidence points to the correctness of the policemen's story, not that of their critics.

In a way, this case is the inverse of Ferguson. All the objective evidence shows the government to be correct, and the Bundyites to be wrong. Nonetheless, many posters, most of whom share my skepticism and mistrust of the federal government, use this rather clear example of misdeeds by an anti-government faction to bring alleged governmental misdeeds into the fore of the discussion.

What I think this really shows is the difficulty of removing our prejudices from our observations.

On a slightly different tangent, whoever said the beef in the Hammond case is with the jury has a point. The jury has the right to believe or disbelieve witnesses. The jundge, and any appellate court, must respect the jury's (or the trial judge's if there is no jury) determination of facts unless that determinatnion is clearly erroneous. The clearly erroneous standard is a rather high one. Merely because the reviewer would have found the facts differently isn't enough, particularly when it comes to deciding whose testimony gets what weight. Unless the factual finding is rather blatantly incorrect (e.g., if the jury decided that the thief stole $1,000.00 from person A, and $1,000.00 from person B, for a total of $3,000.00 from A and B), the jury's findings bind the reviewing courts.

On the other hand, a judge's rulings on the law are entitled to no particular wieght on appeal. The reviewing court examines issues of law de novo. When the trial judge in the Hammond case found that the minimum penalties "shocked the conscience," he had no discretion to sentence less unless he found the act under which they were sentenced unconstitutional.

Many statutes in Title 18 (the federal criminal code) specify only maximum sentences (e.g., shall be fined not more than $500,000.00, or sentenced to imprisonment of not more than five years, or both). Until about 2005, those statutes were subject to mandatory sentencing guidelines (talk about an oxymoron) that did not allow deviation. Around then, the SCOTUS ruled the mandatory guidelines unconstitutional, because they deprived the courts of discretion where congress did not.

In contrast, congress, not the guidelines, deprived the trial court of the discretion he exercised. If the Hammonds wanted to appeal, they would need to have challenged the constitutionality of that act at the trial level (in order to preserve the issue on appeal), as well as at the Ninth Circuit. Only then would the issue be ripe for decision by the SCOTUS. It sounds like they decided the hassle wasn't worth it.

To make my rather opaque comment a bit clearer, the judge who saw the trial and witnesses thought the sentence was unjust. All of us who review that belief, including the Ninth Circuit, have no reason to question that determination. Because the defendants chose not to pursue a constitutional challenge to the law, however, the trial judge's determinatnion of the justice of the sentence is irrelevant. The lighter sentence he imposed my be more just, but it is illegal.

John
patrick compton

Trad climber
van
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:00am PT
The heavily armed Vanilla Isis is occupying a federal building, but they don't know what they want.

representative of the typical angry white male?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:18am PT
DMT, the two ranchers (hereafter the "ranchers") do not support the occupiers. The ranchers may well have been railroaded. That certainly seems the view of the trial judge who heard all the evidence that we didn't. The ranchers just want this over with.

I feel like I understand their position, because of my own experience as a federal defendant who many felt was unjustly (and possibly illegally) sentenced. The cost in time, money and emotions wasn't worth the fight to me. As a result of accepting the court's actions (which I personally felt were reasonable in the circumstances) and serving my time, I'm now emotionally free. I think that's all the ranchers want now.

Instead the occupiers have managed to put the ranchers front and center - just where they don't want to be. The occupiers constitute a very different situation, to me, from that of the ranchers. I simply see no justification for the occupiers' actions. I note, however, that they're getting exactly what they seek from the mainstream media. The broadcast news, the daily newspapers, even The Guardian have the occupiers and their demands and positions as front page news. If they left them alone, starved for news coverage, they'd be gone in no time.

John
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:21am PT
Armed people have taken over a government building. Does anyone really think that these guys aren't headed for prison? If I and 10 other guys armed ourselves and took over the local library, you can bet your ass that the SWAT team would be on the way. And they would be right.

I'll be happy to see these "patriots" who are upset about sucking off of the government tit get what they have coming. Grazing fees are a joke. From what I discovered, the Hammond family owns 10,000 acres and has another 20,000 acres of grazing leases on federal land.

Wiki actually has a page about grazing fees. Here is what they say:

In the United States, grazing fees are generally charged per AUM (animal unit month). (Some additional fee or fees may be charged in various jurisdictions, e.g. per application.) On US federal grazing land, the grazing fee for 2012 (as for 2011) is $1.35 per AUM.[3] Over several decades, the fees charged on US federal rangelands have generally been substantially lower than rates charged on private lands in the US.[4] In 2006, the grazing fee on Oregon state lands was $5.60 per AUM.[5]

So the state of Oregon charges $5.60. The federal government charges $1.35. I would call that a pretty damn good deal. It is practically free. You can feed a cow on federal land for only $16.20 a year.

I grew up on a pecan farm, with 350 trees. My dad used to lease the pasture around the trees to a cattle rancher. He paid the going rate. He only ran cattle on it for a few years. My dad planted much of it with vetch, which has nitrogen fixing bacterial growths on the roots. It is good for the soil, which was rich and black good bottomland.

The rancher always had his cattle out by pecan harvest season, in the fall.

The rancher didn't own the land. He leased it. I need to ask my Dad how much he received, but I can nigh promise you that he paid more than $1.35 bucks per cow per month. That is almost free.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:31am PT
DMT, the two ranchers (hereafter the "ranchers") do not support the occupiers.

This is true, and an important point. The Hammonds and their attorney want nothing to do with these guys. The Bundy sons are acting like a branch of the military. Fat bastards with guns and no job drive up there when they hear the call.

I do think that 5 years for burning 130 acres is excessive. If it was rangeland, I'm surprised that they even cared. That land needs to be burned every 5 to 10 years or so anyway.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:35am PT
John posted:
Remind me, again, the nature of the exploitation in Ferguson. All I saw was a bunch of people on ST who decided they knew the "facts" before any real determination of those facts. Last I saw, the objective evidence points to the correctness of the policemen's story, not that of their critics.

John, it's a little frustrating that you would be so dismissive considering the volume of reporting about this and the US Department of Justice Report on the extensive systemic abuse. The predominantly white city council was using the predominantly black citizenry as a cash register to keep taxes low through a regime of aggressive policing and fining (and then fining/jailing for inability to pay the fines). Is the WSJ not covering these kinds of topics?
Escopeta

Trad climber
Idaho
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:38am PT

The rancher didn't own the land. He leased it. I need to ask my Dad how much he received, but I can nigh promise you that he paid more than $1.35 bucks per cow per month. That is almost free.

For the record, comparing the relative fertility of a pecan orchard with Harney Basin is, shall we say, inappropriate.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:38am PT
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/those-jamokes-in-oregon-arent-terrorists-theyre-jamoke-1750918911

The American political lexicon has an appropriate word for the armed men conspicuously loitering in part of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge instead of going home. It is not terrorist or militia or occupation or revolution or movement or front or army or resistance. The word is jamoke. “Get a load of these sad jamokes!” is the thing you say about them.

Maybe when they are done annexing this remote administrative office’s supply of free park maps and permit application forms, they will liberate rural Oregon’s port-a-johns next. Some of the port-a-johns are heavily fortified with locking doors and hand sanitizer pumps. Surely this will call for siege weaponry.

Imagine the grade of sad, stunted halfwit who decks himself out in paramilitary regalia and lethal weaponry to stage a sit-in at what is for all intents and purposes a remote wildlife park’s visitor’s center. Okay, men, when I kick in the door, you three move on the 74-year-old v0lunteer who shows the birdwatching slideshow to elementary-school field trip groups; if she makes a move, be ready to take her down with force. The rest of us will establish a defensive position behind the cardboard beaver. If bigger goobers than these exist on our planet, you identify them by the bruises from where they poked themselves in the eye while trying to pick their noses.








BREAKING: White Men Enter Building In Rural Oregon, Act Like They Run The Place. Here is a question: At which rural Oregon building isn’t that true? That sh#t happens at 9:00 in the morning literally every day at literally every building in rural and suburban America. It is called the start of the workday. Maybe these sh#t-for-brains jamokes can push a broom around while they’re there, or take the recycling to the curb. Make yourselves useful, clowns!

A tragicomic thing happens, though, when a handful of slow-witted white dorks in their best Sunday camo decide to take their guns and their entitled, useless, cosmically unserious day-to-day dull-eyed skulking to a minor government shack and pretend it’s some sort of insurrection against tyranny. Liberal internet users’ latent frustration at the disproportionality and unfairness of the way American law enforcement and media treat different kinds of people tips over into a mild derangement that has us likening these sh#t-for-brains dinguses to friggin’ ISIS. This is understandable! We’re just about a week from an Ohio grand jury deciding that summary execution is a fair consequence for 12-year-old kids who play with toys outdoors; by that standard, the entire state of Oregon should be a radioactive desert right now. This seems a fair thing to point out.

Still, hang on. First, watch this nimrod tearfully explain to his family that he had to miss Christmas and New Year’s Eve because his solemn duty to the Constitution required him to go to a wildlife park’s empty administrative building and hang out there for a while in the desperate hope that someone outside his brotherhood of blinkered morons would decide this makes him Andrew Pickens:
All together now: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Hey Jon, pick up some toilet paper and fruit roll-ups on the way home, wouldja?

Here is the thing. These men are not frightening. They are jamokes. They are exactly jamokes. Their guns, on the other hand, are very frightening—for precisely and entirely the same reason and to absolutely the same degree that those same guns would be frightening in the hands of toddlers. Not because the people holding those guns are serious, but because the people holding those guns are not serious.

This, my good buddies, is the entire American pro-gun argument made (embarrassing, oh my God so f*#king embarrassing) flesh. A big scary gun lends a degree of real power even to the variety of sad, corny-ass loser who invades and occupies what is essentially a fancy birdhouse in the name of ending tyranny. That is the whole reason to have a big scary gun. Not as a safeguard against home invaders or the totalitarian state, but as a safeguard against a clear-eyed reckoning with plain reality. A gun is—or at least these jamokes hope it is—a Get Out Of Getting Laughed At Free card. When you call these horse’s asses “terrorists,” you are not only dignifying their ridiculous, impotent actions, you are doing them the biggest favor for which they can hope.

Here is what this is: it’s the moment the gun-humping right pantsed itself for all the world to see. Look at these sad cowards! The smallness of their acting-out; the transparency of their bullshit; the fraudulence of their anti-authoritarian pose; the convenience of the fact that their active search for a tyranny against which to rebel—it wasn’t coming to take their guns away, you see—led them to an unoccupied building of zero value in the middle of nowhere, where the most aggressive response they’ll muster from the government they so eagerly pretend to fear is an irritated phone call from a Bureau of Land Management flack. There’s no reason to join them in the collective fantasy that they represent a threat to anything other than the urine-free status of this random building’s bathroom sink.

Some morons decided to take a vacation from reality. They brought their guns along. The rest of the world actually does not have to join them! Eventually they will get bored of waiting for tyranny to come certify their jagoff fantasy. Maybe they will leave a bag of flaming crap on tyranny’s doorstep on their way back home.

fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:38am PT
Point is there is no point here... The ranchers reported to prison and didn't want to contest it apparently.

What bothers me most is the people who want the gov't to kill/maim/mutilate the 'protesters' who are holed up in some snowy unoccupied building without a cause. They might be idiots but that's no reason to physically harm them and risk kicking off more conflict between gov't and an angry misinformed populace.

There is no need for violence here on either side and hopefully nothing will happen.

Send 'em tickets for trespassing later. Defuse the whole situation.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:39am PT
Wiki has a great page describing the events of the Nevada standoff with the Bundy family.

It is good reading. If you are interested in the basic facts behind the event, you should read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

The summary tells of the reason that the BLM physically stepped in to remove his cattle. It is much simpler than many make it out to be:

The ongoing dispute started in 1993, when, in protest against changes to grazing rules,[2] Bundy declined to renew his permit for cattle grazing on BLM-administered lands near Bunkerville, Nevada.[3] According to the BLM, Bundy continued to graze his cattle on public lands without a permit.[4] In 1998, Bundy was prohibited by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada from grazing his cattle on an area of land later called the Bunkerville Allotment.[3] In July 2013, the BLM complaint was supplemented when federal judge Lloyd D. George ordered that Bundy refrain from trespassing on federally administered land in the Gold Butte area of Clark County.[5]

You might find Bundy's worldview interesting. He, like many of these guys, believe in the Sovereign Citizen world view:

According to The Guardian, Bundy told his supporters that "We definitely don't recognize [the BLM director's] jurisdiction or authority, his arresting power or policing power in any way," and in interviews he used the language of the sovereign citizen movement, thereby gaining the support of members of the Oath Keepers, the White Mountain Militia and the Praetorian Guard militias.[33] Followers of the sovereign citizen movement generally believe that the U.S. government is illegitimate.[34] The movement is considered by the FBI as the nation’s top domestic terrorism threat.[35][36]

J. J. MacNab, who writes for Forbes about anti-government extremism, has described Bundy’s views as inspired by the sovereign citizen movement, whose adherents believe that the county sheriff is the most powerful law-enforcement officer in the country, with authority superior to that of any federal agent, local law-enforcement agency or any other elected official.[37] On April 12, 2014, Bundy "ordered" Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie to confront the federal agents, disarm them and deliver their arms to Bundy within an hour of his demand. He later expressed disappointment that Gillespie did not comply, and he said that the demand had applied to all sheriffs in the country.[37][38]

The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Bundy's views as closely aligned with those of the Posse Comitatus organization, and it has also asserted that such self-described "patriot" groups were focused on secession, nullification, state sovereignty and the principles of the Tenther movement.[39][40]



Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:47am PT
Well I don't have party lines.

maybe you don't have party lines, and I don't include you in this, but a great number of ST posters have panty lines, all bunched up and affecting their collective brain cells.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:48am PT
There is no need for violence here on either side and hopefully nothing will happen.

Send 'em tickets for trespassing later. Defuse the whole situation.

I would bet that something like this will indeed happen. Nobody wants to see another Waco, even if the feds are in the right, which the Hammond family has not even contested.

These guys are armed to the teeth, though, and Ammon Bundy said that they were going to use the building for years. At some point they are going to have to leave.

This all reminds me of Tim McVeigh, who took similar beliefs to a horrific end. I live in a suburb of OKC, and my 2 year old son was 9 blocks from his truck bomb. Even at that distance, it blew out all of the windows facing the explosion.

You won't find much sympathy for the militia types in Oklahoma. After the bombing, many militia groups disbanded. Now a newer generation is taking it up again, with weird theories of government that have no basis on reality.

If you don't believe me about Ammon Bundy's claims of what they are going to do with the wildlife refuge office building, just watch what he says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H264Z2v80vg
fear

Ice climber
hartford, ct
Jan 4, 2016 - 11:54am PT
They're not "armed to the teeth". It's a bunch of unsupported guys with small arms in inhospitable and unfamiliar terrain.

It's not worth risking an ounce of blood on either side IMO.

If there really is evidence that someone may have truly criminal intent (aka the OK bombing) then arrest them later.



Messages 221 - 240 of total 2571 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta