DefinitelyDressage.com

In plain language? It's getting a lot of news coverage up here but it's being written up as "home grown terrorists" and that sort of thing. All I can decipher is that some guy and his dad got busted for burning brush to get rid of weeds. For some reason, a judge somewhere, somehow decided whatever sentence they originally got wasn't enough and gave them more. Now some other dudes are out there protesting - for exactly what reason I can't quite figure out - and they've taken over some wildlife reserve? I'm not entirely sure how that makes them terrorists - or if they even are the home grown terrorists occupying our media. Our news coverage of this is not the best, to say the least.

It is a pretty murky situation. And what I make of it is that a rancher (the Hammonds) and his son back burned land which adjoins their ranch that belongs to the federal government. From what I understand one cannot go burn federal lands without permission. They were sentenced as terrorists, but the judge did not give them the mandatory jail sentence. He did however fine them $400,000.00 They served a few months or maybe a year in prison. On appeal their sentences were considered to "light" and the mandatory sentence of 5 years was instated.

Meanwhile the Bundy's of Nevada who have been fighting the federal government over paying the lease payments (they graze their cattle on government land) have now taken up this cause that the federal government should not own lands, it is government over-reach, and the lands should go back to the local municipalities to be (sold?) or redistributed to farmers and ranchers.

This particular wildlife area was "created" by the BLM (bureau of land management) buying up ranches to create this wildlife area. The Hammonds have refused to sell.

Conspiracy theorists maintain that the government is trying to take away the Hammonds ranch so that it can be part of the wildlife area. The Hammonds lawyer maintains the Hammonds have nothing to do with this group that has taken over the wildlife center building.

I read an article yesterday that said the neighbors close to the land the Hammonds burned brought the argument back before the Federal court because they feared for their homes in that fire. IF that is true, the Federal courts did not just look over an old case in the ruling. Instead, it was brought to them. I would be worried as well as a neighbor. This is government owned land much like our National Forests. It shouldn't be okay for someone to just burn it even if they are living next door and worried about fires on their property. It puts at risk everyone that borders that National Forest. That is why there are people whose job it is to manage the land.

The reason they are called terrorists is because they are armed against the government. Had they made a peaceful demonstration (with signs etc) they would not be labeled that.

angela9823 wrote:The reason they are called terrorists is because they are armed against the government. Had they made a peaceful demonstration (with signs etc) they would not be labeled that.

Unless, of course, they were black. Then they would absolutely be labeled terrorist thugs by the very people who are right now armed against the government, and those who are defending them.

Here is the Grand Jury Indictment. It was more than just burning some bushes. http://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/easte ... ars-prison

thank you, code 3-- that clarifies things somewhat. but i wonder-- i thought mandatory sentences were uh, mandatory. but the judge decided otherwise?

Thanks for the insight. I suspect we have not been given all the details of the story.

amygdala wrote:thank you, code 3-- that clarifies things somewhat. but i wonder-- i thought mandatory sentences were uh, mandatory. but the judge decided otherwise?

Yeah, weird one. That's why the prosecutor appealed the sentences and won with another federal judge. A tidbit since both these judges are local. Judge Hogan tends to be more conservative, Judge Aiken more liberal. Both are good judges with no smears on their reputations whatsoever. Whether or not a person agrees that 5 years is a fair minimum, it is the current law and they were convicted.

Now the Paiute tribe has joined in with the Sheriff, the Hammonds, and many locals in telling these guys to go home. They aren't taking the hint.

I find it interesting that the Paiutes are siding with the sheriff and the Hammonds; after all, the settlers and the US government (with the help of General Crook) took the land from the Paiutes. If any group had a legitimate reason to occupy the wildlife center, it would be the Paiutes and the Shoshone.

Heard that all cell service was blocked at the center (don't know how true that is). I would guess power has been cut off as well. From where I sit on the east coast it seems the government is keeping this on the down-lo. Lessons learned from Waco and Ruby Ridge perhaps?

A point - that wildlife refuge was, in fact, created in 1905 by Teddy R.

I have been following many articles with help from a friend in Montana. Apparently they want to return all federal lands to the states to administer. In other words, they want to take land that belongs, in part, to me and you, and give it to the states - for ranchers, miners, etc to use. Keep in mind that consumable uses are already permitted in National Forests, and much grazing and mining goes on on BLM land. In fact, the ranchers who are paying per cow to graze the land are paying a fraction of the going rate for grazing on private land.
They are complaining that the rules (meant to protect the resources, from water quality and soil to wildlife to birds) are too hard to follow and restrictive. The current rules were the result of cooperation and agreement by all the parties involved. (But that's not good enough for these fools.)

MANY hunting and conservation groups, as well as birding groups, are now standing up against them.

It is a rather interesting situation. It's left the news - at least around here - for now but it is probably worth keeping a watch for.

lorilu wrote:Apparently they want to return all federal lands to the states to administer. In other words, they want to take land that belongs, in part, to me and you, and give it to the states - for ranchers, miners, etc to use.

Bear in mind that if the state owned the land rather than the feds, you and I would still own it as we pay federal and state taxes. The difference would be in who administers and manages the land. Either fed or state could allow ranchers, miners, etc to use the land.

Tabby wrote:It is a rather interesting situation. It's left the news - at least around here - for now but it is probably worth keeping a watch for.

It's on the front page of the Oregonian every day. You can follow it here:

Oregonlive.com

I just want them to go home (they're NOT Oregonians), and quit trying to incite.

It does get more interesting. There are now counter protesters telling them to go home, the citizens at a community meeting telling them to go home, and the sons of the federal judge who sent the Hammonds back to prison doing fundraising for causes the Bundys would be opposed to - conservation, gun control. Southern Poverty Law Center - for as long as they occupy the federal buildings.

WheresMyWhite wrote:

lorilu wrote:Apparently they want to return all federal lands to the states to administer. In other words, they want to take land that belongs, in part, to me and you, and give it to the states - for ranchers, miners, etc to use.

Bear in mind that if the state owned the land rather than the feds, you and I would still own it as we pay federal and state taxes. The difference would be in who administers and manages the land. Either fed or state could allow ranchers, miners, etc to use the land.

Well, since I live in Florida, not Oregon, I doubt I would be considered a part owner. They want to take land that is now protected from some types of consumptive uses (like some wilderness areas, wildlife preserves, etc) and open them to grazing, drilling, lumbering, etc etc.

I have been following this closely through a friend in Montana. These folks have built a road throught he preserve, using government equipment.... and destroying important habitat..... because it was inconvenient to go the long way around.

And they want us to believe they will care for the land better than the scientists.

Funny how it's reported differently in different countries. Here it's a 'weird American survivalists doing crazy shit and will it be another Wacol'

1 - crazy farmer burns land he doesn't own and goes feral
2 - judge charges mad bloke as a 'terrorist' whereas here we would have just charged him under vandalism, illegal burning, Environmental Protection Laws.
3 - crazy farmer gets together with a whole heap of social media friends who are also crazy; and
4 - Americans start pulling out their bloody guns and roostering (when men puff out their chests and posture at each other in a testosterone filled rage)
(Side note, here crazy farmer with guns should have already had his guns seized once he had been found guilty of the other offences, but once he started threatening to shoot people he would be looking at some serious jail time and then there are our proceeds of crime laws where thè government seizes all your assets that are considered the proceeds of crime and use thàt money for restitution).

So the question is, will it be another Wacol?

Or does American law enforcement have the patience to just stand back and wait for these crazy people to get bored and go home and pay their bloody fines?

FWIW, it's Waco, Texas (not Wacol )

Do I think it will be another Waco - no.

From the article linked above, they were sentenced as arsonists, not terrorists, which makes a whole lot more sense!

Here is more. Faces only a mother could love:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... onal_pop_b