oregon situation

[IdahoElk]

I'm assuming you mean Hillary. What offenses has she committed that would warrant execution for treason? I don't like her at all because she's a corporate bootlicker but hanging seems a bit much. Not trolling here, just curious.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html

 

[airlocksniffer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html

Okay, a Fox News link is about as non-biased as an MSNBC link. I'm sure she's corrupt as all get out but that crosses both aisles. Not defending her, just pointing out that hanging seems a bit extreme.

 

[Jason Snyder]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/29/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html

Don't want to hi-jack this thread, and I'm certainly not a tin foil hat guy. I usually get accused of being a closet liberal.

There is only one reason to NOT use a government email and government device, and that is to hide documents from public disclosure/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. To do so at the expense of national security is mind-boggling. I can't see Teflon Hillary skating by this one.

 

[COlineman78]

Disagree. Very few states would be able to handle this correctly. I would give California a couple years before they sold it all off to pay for their absurdly mounting debt. Even here in CO, the state lands are managed fairly well, but a lot of them have usage fees. The states simply don't have the resources, infrastructure or will to manage such massive amounts of land.

The BLM has it's faults: for example where I hunt there are a lot of useless pieces of BLM because they sold off all of the land around it and so you essentially give the surrounding property owners free private access to public land that no one can get to. I am fortunately a guest of a group of hunters who saw this and buys these pieces of land, but it certainly isn't public. Buy 40 acres and you get semi-private access to over 200 more. However that could go away at any time if the BLM should decide to sell and they know that. However that is a lot less likely with the BLM running it than the state. But should I be able to use that 40 acres to start a ranch and expect unfettered access to all of those 200+ acres to graze my cattle and profit off public lands? No. When a hunter complains about hikers or hikers complain about hunters it's the same thing; it's public land and you have just as much right to use it as the next guy. Another example of how the states poorly manage this concept is a wildlife area near Boulder where Moose hunting is no longer allowed on weekends or within a certain distance of a certain lake because hippies go there to see the Moose and a couple got killed in front of them. The hunter should have just as might right to use that public land as the tree huggers, but the state has to appease the vocal majority in that area.

Do you honestly think that the state government is going to let you graze your cattle for free on public lands any more than the federal government does? As far as hunting goes, I actually don't have much of a problem with grazing cattle; I see them all the time while hunting. But grazing sheep is another story. If the sheep herd is in the area you might as well just go home. They tear the crap out of the land and the dogs scare off any wildlife (and me; you don't want to mess with those f*&kers). As public lands they should be available for hiking, shooting, hunting, etc all equally; not taken over by some sheep rancher who is making money off public lands. Don't get me wrong, I respect him and his very tough living, but to use public land for profit should still have to pay a fee and be restricted in order to make fair use of the land.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Don't want to hi-jack this thread, and I'm certainly not a tin foil hat guy. I usually get accused of being a closet liberal.

There is only one reason to NOT use a government email and government device, and that is to hide documents from public disclosure/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. To do so at the expense of national security is mind-boggling. I can't see Teflon Hillary skating by this one.

Totally agree, shady as hell. She's not the first SOS to keep a private email server though. Inexcusable no matter what party they belong to.

 

[Matt Cashell]

This is what happens to every discussion about public lands: It turns into unrelated partisan bickering. What do Hillary Clinton's emails have to do with this again?

The Bundy occupation used the Hammonds as their excuse to make their stand. It didn't have anything to do with them. The Hammonds never asked for Bundy's help, and made public statements that the Bundy's aren't acting in their interest or speaking for them.

The issues are wildly different.

The Hammonds have a beef with minimum sentences. They accepted their guilty verdicts from a jury of their peers. They object to the minimum sentence guidelines and felt the original sentencing judge was right in sentencing them under the minimum.

The Bundy's are a pseudo-sovereign cult trying to use intimidation to change land policy.

The Hammonds peacefully turned themselves in and are pursuing their options through the legal process. That is a pretty stark contrast to the Bundy armed occupation.

 

[Chad E]

Rightfully the land should belong to the states.

So they can sell it to private owners and we (the public) can't access it anymore?

 

[Jason Snyder]

This is what happens to every discussion about public lands: It turns into unrelated partisan bickering. What do Hillary Clinton's emails have to do with this again?

The Bundy occupation used the Hammonds as their excuse to make their stand. It didn't have anything to do with them. The Hammonds never asked for Bundy's help, and made public statements that the Bundy's aren't acting in their interest or speaking for them.

The issues are wildly different.

The Hammonds have a beef with minimum sentences. They accepted their guilty verdicts from a jury of their peers. They object to the minimum sentence guidelines and felt the original sentencing judge was right in sentencing them under the minimum.

The Bundy's are a pseudo-sovereign cult trying to use intimidation to change land policy.

The Hammonds peacefully turned themselves in and are pursuing their options through the legal process. That is a pretty stark contrast to the Bundy armed occupation.

You are correct Matt, sorry for my part in derailing the train.

You bring up some very good points. I think it is worth noting, that when the Hammonds agreed to their original plea agreement, they KNEW what the minimum penalty was. Yet they still chose to move forward with that. They played a game of hardball that they didn't win. I am willing to bet that if they had taken a plea deal prior to the trial, they could have avoided the 5 year minimum. One beauty of the federal court system is that the indictment process weeds out the crap, and the prosecutors move forward with a pretty iron clad case. The Hammonds went to trial, and when they realized they were SOL, they took a plea agreement to minimize the guilty verdicts and hoped to serve their sentences concurrently instead of consecutively.

I honestly don't know that I disagree with the Hammonds on their sentencing. The judge who sentenced them was a George H. Bush appointee and very widely respected. I have no doubt he did what he thought was fair and just.

If Ammon Bundy really had the Hammonds' best interests in mind, he would have worked towards an effective resolution to the situation. Anyone with half a brain could see the writing on the wall. The initial sentence was illegal because it violated a statutory minimum sentence, thus it would certainly be overturned. The only option here was a presidential pardon, something that Representative Walden could have also lobbied for. If a person slinging crack in Atlanta can get one, there's a pretty good chance these guys could too.

Ammon Bundy and his followers are completely out to lunch here, and as such it's going to be their turn to pay the piper.

 

[beachbunny]

Jason, i was trying to get a feeling for the tools that were being used against the protesters.
Men, thanks for all the comments, as an easterner I am beginning to see the difficulties you all are facing.
Fundamentally state owned versus fed owned land and where we as taxpayers are caught between both.

 

[IdahoElk]

After seeing what they(feds,BLM) have done in my area I strongly believe its all about Agenda 21
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/agenda-21-the-blm-land-grabbing-endgame

 

[Jason Snyder]

Jason, i was trying to get a feeling for the tools that were being used against the protesters.
Men, thanks for all the comments, as an easterner I am beginning to see the difficulties you all are facing.
Fundamentally state owned versus fed owned land and where we as taxpayers are caught between both.

Actually, for all of the criticism the feds took on the protestors, I thought they handled it beautifully. That shows me they learned significant lessons from Waco and Ruby Ridge.

There was no pressing need to storm the refuge and seize it back. Why create the Alamo if you don't need to? The longer they waited the militia out, the more emboldened they became, and the more public sentiment turned against the militia. Even the locals didn't want them there. I don't know if the feds had intel the militia was heading to John Day, or if it was shit-ass luck and they were able to throw the op together on the fly. My guess is they had intel, given how well it was orchestrated.

By allowing the militia guys away from the refuge, they could now do things on their own terms. No bunkers, no worry about booby traps, etc. I think the militia guys were so confident that they were untouchable, that they used very poor judgment. Ammon Bundy probably thought he was a pretty cool cat after walking out on the FBI negotiator. I bet he wishes he had that one to do over again.

Personally, I have no qualms with federal ownership and/or management. I would like to see management improved and streamlined. However, it's interesting to note that the BLM/USFS biggest critics in terms of management are many of the Republican Congress who have the most authority and ability to restructure how the BLM/USFS do business and are funded.

 

[TJ]

After seeing what they(feds,BLM) have done in my area I strongly believe its all about Agenda 21
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/agenda-21-the-blm-land-grabbing-endgame

Shhhhh! don't tell our secret.


Land Grab really?

 

[beachbunny]

Boy, now this pops up!https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/...-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

 

[mtluckydan]

Another link with more people from the community stating that the BLM & other agencies were trying to push the Hammonds off their ranch. I guess we can't believe these folks either. They all must be lying.

http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

 

[buttcord]

Another link with more people from the community stating that the BLM & other agencies were trying to push the Hammonds off their ranch. I guess we can't believe these folks either. They all must be lying.

http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

You mean people like the property rights attorney from Wyoming? Or the guy making Nazi Germany comparisons?

 

[IdahoElk]

Boy, now this pops up!https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/...-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

There have been numerous stories online about this since the start.

 

[buttcord]

Boy, now this pops up!https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/...-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

"So we have the Clintons, and Uranium One sold to Putin, and that sale gives him control of 20% of US uranium production. Now we have an area in Southern Oregon which has uranium, and in this area, the feds are coming down on the protestors and the occupiers.

What are the feds really trying to protect? Are they just trying to stop cattle grazing and routine burns on that land, or is there something more far precious at stake?"

OK, so the only reason the feds were compelled to crack down on the occupation of federal buildings was to protect a shadowy uranium deal. Got it.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Another link with more people from the community stating that the BLM & other agencies were trying to push the Hammonds off their ranch. I guess we can't believe these folks either. They all must be lying.

http://www.tsln.com/news/18837869-113/where-theres-smoke

Interesting that the article quotes the DOJs press release regarding the Hammond convictions but omits the part regarding testimony that the fire was set to cover up deer poaching.

You can read the whole press release here:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...son-resentenced-five-years-prison&h=UAQEsnuCj

I actually think the Hammonds have a pretty good case for the sentence issue, but making them into folk heroes seems a bit drastic. In any case, it is no reason for an armed takeover of a bird refuge, nor did the Hammonds want it to be, from what they have said.

In regards to the other many and varied conspiracy issues, they are (by nature) impossible to argue against, since any evidence to the contrary is just viewed as further proof of the conspiracy.

Please join me in supporting our public lands and opposing transfer efforts.

 

[tipsntails7]

I seriously cannot read anymore articles about this, this story has literally been spun in every direction possible. People are just omitting stuff then taking other snippets and rewording them to suit their agenda. Modern day journalism is complete mess...

 

[Matt Cashell]

Modern day journalism is complete mess...

For sure, there is no getting bias out of the media, even the big names. Yet, I can't say it is "a complete mess."

The major news sources, whether they lean left (MSNBC) or right (FOX) still have to somewhat adhere to some level of journalistic standards.

The conspiracy sites don't, of course.

This:

Boy, now this pops up!https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/...-is-the-oregon-standoff-really-about-uranium/

Is not journalism. It is propaganda. It is also interesting to note the author doesn't actually make any claims of conspiracy. He uses only innuendo in the form of "raising the question." He is actually careful not to make any outright accusations. The closest he comes is "present(ing) a circumstantial case for..."

Further, he only references another propaganda site (intellihub) and his OWN previous article (which also only raised "questions"). Clever.

I am no apologizer for the Clintons, but it is hard to imagine they are both radical environmentalists AND secret uranium miners for the Russians.

Anyway, it is again more deflections which try to take attention away from the real issues:

1. Public access and management of public lands.

2. Using insurrection to further an agenda when your representative government won't.

Supporting public lands IS supporting the constitution. It is not a partisan issue. Hopefully all hunters can come together with other recreators and preserve this national treasure.