Who knew the next Civil War would start in a Park in Oregon...

At least the Kochs are Americans...

FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
Beijing, China

Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People’s Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China’s continued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take — inside the USA — land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities – to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to “take” all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

They're out in the middle-of-nowhere 30 miles from the nearest town and it's the dead of winter. Just turn off the electricity & water.  They'll come out pretty soon.  (Then charge each & every one with several felonies.)

Yeah put them in stocks for daring to stand against the king....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah put them in stocks for daring to stand against the king....

Uuuuu, no.   Give 'em each about 18 months in Federal prison.


Hey? How come you're not out there Teo?


*

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah put them in stocks for daring to stand against the king....

Uuuuu, no.   Give 'em each about 18 months in Federal prison.

Wow I didn't take you for a Federal apologist....do you really know what happened there ?

if you have time watch this and I think you may change your mind....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah put them in stocks for daring to stand against the king....

Uuuuu, no.   Give 'em each about 18 months in Federal prison.

Wow I didn't take you for a Federal apologist....do you really know what happened there ?  

No apologies here .... you wanna protest, go ahead protest. Walk around with signs, write your Congressman, bloviate on the internet or something. You want to seize & take over government buildings ..... well, go to jail then. Rule of law and all that, ya know.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah put them in stocks for daring to stand against the king....

Uuuuu, no.   Give 'em each about 18 months in Federal prison.

Wow I didn't take you for a Federal apologist....do you really know what happened there ?  

No apologies here .... you wanna protest, go ahead protest.  Walk around with signs, write your Congressman, bloviate on the internet or something.   You want to seize & take over government buildings ..... well, go to jail then.   Rule of law and all that, ya know.

yeah that's really workin for us....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

polecat wrote:Why don't these guys ever try to take over a Army base or Sheriff's office instead of a butterfly sanctuary or cow pasture?

Probably because they are defenders not offenders....if congress would do their job and uphold the constitution they wouldn't have to do anything..

Defenders of what or whom. The people they claim to be defending don't want their help.

http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

EUGENE, Ore. — A father and son who raise cattle in Eastern Oregon are headed back to federal prison for committing arson on public land.

Dwight Lincoln Hammond, 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, were sentenced on Oct. 7 to five years in prison for illegally setting fires on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property near Diamond, Ore.

The ranchers had already served shorter sentences because the federal judge originally overseeing their case said the five-year minimum requirement “would shock the conscience.”

The Hammonds were subject to re-sentencing because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those original prison terms for igniting fires in 2001 and 2006 as too lenient.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, found that a five-year term would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it’s “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

Dwight Lincoln Hammond, who was only convicted of the 2001 fire, received three months in prison, while his son was sentenced to one year, followed by three years of supervised release for each man.

Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges don’t have the“discretion to disregard” such requirements.

The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchers’ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.

At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.

“You don’t have the right to make decisions on public lands when they’re not yours,” she said.

Aiken compared the situation to “eco-terrorism” cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.

“They didn’t necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,” she said.

Similarly, people who violate hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to sanctions, Aiken said.

“The rules are there for a reason,” she said.

Aiken said she would use discretion in sentencing the Hammonds if she could, but that wasn’t a possibility given the mandatory minimums and the jury’s decision to convict them of arson.

“It wasn’t a jury of people from Eugene, it wasn’t a jury of people from Portland. It was a jury of people from Pendleton — your peers,” she said.

Frank Papagni, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the Hammonds, said the ranchers should be subject to the five-year sentence but disagreed with recommendations from the U.S. Probation Office that they receive even longer sentences.

The U.S. Probation Office said that Dwight Hammond should serve five years and three months, while Steven Hammond should serve six year and six months years.

Papagni said those enhanced sentences were in appropriate because the fires didn’t directly endanger thelives of nearby firefighters and hunters.

Nonetheless, the five-year terms are appropriate for the Hammonds’ actions, he said.

“These grazing leases don’t give them the exclusive right to use these lands,” Papagni said. “It doesn’t give them the right to burn the property. It’s not theirs.”

Attorneys for the Hammonds did not object to the five-year sentences in light of the 9th Circuit ruling, but asked that they receive credit for time served.

Aiken agreed to that request and said she would recommend both men serve their time together at the federal prison in Sheridan, Ore.

Before the sentencing, the Oregon Farm Bureau tried to convince the BLM to drop the arson charges against the Hammonds and replace them with charges that would not require a mandatory minimum sentence, said Dave Dillon, the organization’s executive vice president.

When that route did not yield the desired results, the organization decided to circulate a “Save the Hammonds” petition that has been signed by about 2,400 people.

“We did not make the progress we thought we should, so we’re taking a more public approach,” Dillon said.

Dillon said he recognized that the Hammonds faced slim chances of receiving less than five years, given the 9th Circuit’s ruling, but said he hoped the petition may convince the Obama administration to grant them clemency.

Not only have both men served time in federal prison, but the BLM has refused to renew their grazing rights for two years, he said.

The BLM likely does not subject its own employees to arson charges when they’ve made mistakes during prescribed burns, so the punishment for the Hammonds was excessive, Dillon said.

“To treat them as terrorists, we think, is horribly unjust and secondly, hypocritical,” he said. “Why does the federal government need to get more?"

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

polecat wrote:Why don't these guys ever try to take over a Army base or Sheriff's office instead of a butterfly sanctuary or cow pasture?

Probably because they are defenders not offenders....if congress would do their job and uphold the constitution they wouldn't have to do anything..

Defenders of what or whom.  The people they claim to be defending don't want their help.  

You don't know the whole story...The Hammonds were told by the Feds that they were to have no contact or encourage the men that came to protest. If they did they would be sent to a much much harsher prison facility which the elder Hammond would probably die in....also they would be hit with new charges....

Salinsky wrote:Oh, shut the fuck up already.

You're defending child abusing, poaching, mooching, arsonists.

These are your Minutemen.

Dumbass.

Getting to ya huh...yeah only Bill Ayers and the Weathermen get to blow up federal buildings....and become best buds of a president...

Well, maybe Obama will give 'em a pardon at the end of his term.

Whaddyathink?

Well, if the Federal government has no right to own/maintain that land as a wildlife refuge as these so-called "militia" people allege .... then why aren't they agitating for a return of the land to the people who owned it before? .... (the Northern Paiute tribe! )

If anything is clear-cut about Indians in the Constitution, it is that relations with Indian nations are a federal responsibility. Carrying out that responsibility in Oregon, President U.S. Grant established the Malheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872. It is no coincidence that the historical reservation shares a name with the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, site of the current armed standoff.

White settlement nibbled at the Malheur Indian Reservation until the Bannock War in 1878, which ended with surrendered Paiutes and Bannocks on the reservation being removed, officially to the Yakama Reservation in Washington Territory. Unofficially, Paiutes had scattered all over the Western States that comprised their aboriginal lands. The Burns Paiute Reservation is the remains of the Malheur Reservation and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge is an alternative use for the federal land, for those who believe the federal government exists.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/03/bundy-militia-musters-again-over-paiute-land-162939

There's only a dozen of them. They can starve/freeze them out pretty easy unless the Feds want to make a shock n awe example of them for others who might oppose god itself...We all know white mens lives don't matter....

TEOTWAWKI wrote:There's only a dozen of them. They can starve/freeze them out pretty easy unless the Feds want to make a shock n awe example of them for others who might oppose god itself...We all know white mens lives don't matter....

I'm guessing the Feds will wait 'em out.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:There's only a dozen of them. They can starve/freeze them out pretty easy unless the Feds want to make a shock n awe example of them for others who might oppose god itself...We all know white mens lives don't matter....

I'm guessing the Feds will wait 'em out.

Depends on if they want to make martyrs of them and draw out like minded vets and such....The government has been making preparations for this since Bill Clinton went after the militias...they are as ready as they ever will be for an overhaul of the USA into the north American union...gunfree N.A.U.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:There's only a dozen of them. They can starve/freeze them out pretty easy unless the Feds want to make a shock n awe example of them for others who might oppose god itself...We all know white mens lives don't matter....

I'm guessing the Feds will wait 'em out.

Depends on if they want to make martyrs of them and draw out like minded vets and such....The government has been making preparations for this since Bill Clinton went after the militias...they are as ready as they ever will be for an overhaul of the USA into the north American union...

These guys participating in this have probably stepped into some deep doo-doo with their actions.

More likely the Feds will find some felony to convict them of & strip them forever of their right to possess/purchase a firearm as convicted felons ... and then if the Feds can identify any specific organizations to which any of them belong they'll have those organizations designated as a "domestic terrorist groups" because of this incident and any/all members of those organizations will be placed on a "terrorist watch list" or  "no fly list" & administratively stripped of their right to possess/purchase a firearm as well if that policy ever gets implemented.

One thing's for sure .... they're not doing the law-abiding gun owners of this country any favors with their antics.

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

EmeraldGhost wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:There's only a dozen of them. They can starve/freeze them out pretty easy unless the Feds want to make a shock n awe example of them for others who might oppose god itself...We all know white mens lives don't matter....

I'm guessing the Feds will wait 'em out.

Depends on if they want to make martyrs of them and draw out like minded vets and such....The government has been making preparations for this since Bill Clinton went after the militias...they are as ready as they ever will be for an overhaul of the USA into the north American union...

These guys participating in this have probably stepped into some deep doo-doo with their actions.

More likely the Feds will find some felony to convict them of & strip them forever of their right to possess/purchase a firearm as convicted felons ... and then if the Feds can identify any specific organizations to which any of them belong they'll have those organizations designated as a "domestic terrorist groups" because of this incident and any/all members of those organizations will be placed on a "terrorist watch list" or  "no fly list" & administratively stripped of their right to possess/purchase a firearm.

The war on terrorism and it's half a bazillion laws is a great tool to quell dissent from anyone, anywhere. Buy some popcorn, 2016 is shaping up to be an interesting year...

Poor girl has delusions of truth, justice and the American way...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/Landowners_Guide/Habitat_Mgmt/Grassland/Prescribed_Burning.htm

Prescribed burning is a very important management tool for maintaining and enhancing grasslands. Fire was an important natural part in the development and maintenance of grasslands, forests, and wetlands, throughout history. To many of us, fire is a feared enemy that destroys everything in its path. Because of this, the use of controlled fires, such as prescribed burning, is underutilized as a management tool for improving and maintaining habitats.

For thousands of years, tall grass prairies and open brushlands were kept free of trees by the occasional wildfires that cleared the landscape every two to 50 years. These fires were caused by lightning, or set intentionally by Native Americans. They had discovered that fire killed woody plants, but encouraged fruit bearing shrubs, and forage producing grasslands.

Present day research and experience have shown that prescribed burning can be an effective management tool. Prescribed burns are used most frequently to maintain and restore native grasslands. Prescribed burning can recycle nutrients tied up in old plant growth, control many woody plants and herbaceous weeds, improve poor quality forage, increase plant growth, reduce the risk of large wildfires, and improve certain wildlife habitat. To achieve the above benefits, fire must be used under very specific conditions, using very specific techniques.

Brushlands can be invigorated and maintained with fire to benefit species such as bluebirds and sharp-tailed grouse. Burning old fields controls saplings and woody vegetation, and improves grasslands for use by nesting wildlife and grazing livestock. Forest openings can be manipulated with burns to benefit more than 150 wildlife species. Upland nesting cover used by pheasants, waterfowl, and songbirds will remain productive if periodically burned. Cattails and sedges are returned to vigor by an occasional burn. Lastly, if you want more oaks in a hardwood stand, a fire will kill off less tolerant species such as maple, and basswood, allowing the oak to compete more successfully. Burning is also more cost-effective than other treatments like bulldozing, cutting, or chemicals

It was not a prescribed or controlled burn. They were covering up an illegal act.
Cut and dry case. Go home gun lovers. This is not your dance.

http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/

I am not going to detail the Hammond case, but will give you some links — and some quotes from the court documents, which I pulled and do not find accessible to people without a PACER account.

Everything takes place in the context of the Fish and Wildlife Service buying up all the land around the Hammond ranch for a wildlife refuge. Apparently owning half the land in the West was not good enough for the feds; they had to have more and more and more and more. Then, the feds allegedly took many seemingly retaliatory actions against the Hammonds after they refused to sell. Then, we come to the arson fires, which as presented on the Internet is a hodgepodge of one-sided accounts.

The U.S. Attorney’s one-sided account is here, in its press release. There are a couple of one-sided accounts sympathetic to the Hammonds here and here. The Hammonds’ brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is here. I am not going to vouch for the accuracy of everything in those accounts, but these pieces will at least give you some idea of the other side of the story. Here is an excerpt from one of them:

The first, in 2001, was a planned burn on Hammonds’ own property to reduce juniper trees that have become invasive in that part of the country. That fire burned outside the Hammonds’ private property line and took in 138 acres of unfenced BLM land before the Hammonds got it put out. No BLM firefighters were needed to help extinguish the fire and no fences were damaged.

Dwight’s wife Susan shared some crucial details in an exclusive interview with TSLN.

“They called and got permission to light the fire,” she said, adding that was customary for ranchers conducting range management burns – a common practice in the area.

“We usually called the interagency fire outfit – a main dispatch – to be sure someone wasn’t in the way or that weather would be a problem.” Susan said her son Steven was told that the BLM was conducting a burn of their own somewhere in the region that very same day, but that they believed there would be no problem with the Hammonds going ahead with their planned fire. The court transcript includes the same information in a recording from that phone conversation.

In cross-examination of a prosecution witness, the court transcript also includes admission from Mr. Ward, a range conservationist that the 2001 fire improved the rangeland conditions on BLM.

. . . .

Susan said the second fire, in 2006, was a backfire started by Steven to protect their property from lightening [sic] fires.

“There was fire all around them that was going to burn our house and all of our trees and everything. The opportunity to set a back-fire was there and it was very successful. It saved a bunch of land from burning,” she remembers.

The BLM asserts that one acre of federal land was burned by the Hammonds’ backfire and Susan says determining which fire burned which land is “a joke” because fire burned from every direction.

Neighbor Ruthie Danielson also remembers that evening and agrees. “Lightening [sic] strikes were everywhere, fires were going off,” she said.

The father is 73 years old and had no prior record. He was convicted of one count of arson.

A couple of points. First: it’s not really the case that the jury accepted every aspect of the government’s case, just because there were a couple of arson convictions. The Hammonds admitted starting the two fires of which they were convicted, and the dispute was over whether they intended the fires to spread to public lands. The jury, as I understand it, found that they did — but that doesn’t mean the jury found that they were trying to act as terrorists, or burn down large swaths of the countryside, or do anything but protect their own property.

Well that's a good thing...maybe it will dissuade other red dawn wantabes from going full retard...

Hey? How come you're not out there Teo?


Duh.....Poser.