Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

[MarAzul]

Sure, no reason to maintain parks. That's a good common sense approach. A park that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors each year doesn't need maintenance.

barfo

Well probably not more than they pay to visit.

 

[MarAzul]

I find it enjoyable seeing City boys reading about the BLM.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I find it enjoyable seeing City boys reading about the BLM.

Yeah, and the more I read, the less sympathetic I am to the occupying "patriots"......the sense of entitlement some of these folks have is breathtaking.......nothing but a bunch of low rent attention whores.....

 

[MarAzul]

I always thought Kilaoea Volcano on the Big Island was wasted energy...13 vents spewing all that energy 24/7...always wondered why they didn't burn unwanted stuff up in the lava instead of landfilling it. There's a ton of geothermal energy on that island that is just spilling into the ocean

Yes, it is really silly when you look at those islands. Every Island has a generator plant, I walked though the one on Molokai one night just see how it works (just a curious guy). They have 4 big Irvington Machine Desiel engine generating the power, big tanks of diesel feeding these big slow turning engines. They turn at 600 rpms, one to three online at anyone time. Each one of those Islands
has the capacity at least a 1000 times over to generate the required power from the geothermal energy available. They burn diesel instead, Barrack Obama, a home boy there, wants to use Solar. Go figure!

 

[MarAzul]

Yeah, and the more I read, the less sympathetic I am to the occupying "patriots"......the sense of entitlement some of these folks have is breathtaking.......nothing but a bunch of low rent attention whores.....

I sense a bit of snark. I do hope you take a bit more from this. However, I will not cry even one tear when they jail that Bundy fellow. I see the eastern news reports of this and it doesn't not put Oregon in a good light. Too bad the focus is on the wrong headed action rather than the true mismanagement.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, and the more I read, the less sympathetic I am to the occupying "patriots"......the sense of entitlement some of these folks have is breathtaking.......nothing but a bunch of low rent attention whores.....

Read this then, from a non-partisan source:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/10/fanning_the_flames_in_oregon_129260.html

The Oregon protests are a reaction to the harsh prison sentences meted out by the federal criminal justice system to a 73-year-old rancher and his son for starting two fires on their own land in 2001 and 2006. Dwight Hammond and his 46-year-old son, Steven, lit the first fire to eliminate invasive plants on their land, and the second as a backfire to protect their ranch from a natural fire. In the first case, 139 acres of adjoining federal land—grassland they lease from the government—was burned. The second fire, set to protect their winter feed from a lightning-caused wildfire, resulted in a single acre of public land being burned. For this infraction, they were subjected to a felony prosecution under a federal law aimed at arsonists and bombers who destroy federal buildings.

Absurd, yes, but typical in our prosecution-crazed nation. The Hammonds were convicted and sentenced to prison: three months for Dwight, a year for Steven. The statute they were convicted of violating carries a five-year “mandatory minimum,” but U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan found that to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. So the Hammonds did their time and were released. But federal prosecutors wanted a much bigger pound of flesh; they appealed the sentence.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government. Their reasoning was that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious offenses.” It cited draconian examples worthy of a Victor Hugo novel: 50 years under California's “three strikes” law for stealing nine videotapes, 25-to-life under the same law for the theft of three golf clubs, 40 years for possession of nine ounces of marijuana.

Essentially, the justices were saying that official insanity in other cases, imposed either by Congress or state legislatures, was affirmed by the Supreme Court—so what could they do? But political candidates and elected officials are not hamstrung that way. The Oregon case could be a teachable moment for liberal reformers and fiscal conservatives alike. One would especially think politicians of color would use the Hammond case to make a larger point. Not about the media, but about this country’s sentencing laws.

AUTHOR:

Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief of RealClearPolitics. Carl is a past recipient of the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Distinguished Reporting and the Aldo Beckman Award, the two most prestigious awards for White House coverage. Previous positions include Executive Editor of PoliticsDaily.com, DC Bureau Chief for Reader's Digest and White House correspondent for both the Baltimore Sun and National Journal. He was a 2007 fellow-in-residence at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, a past president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, and is a published author.

 

[MarAzul]

^ There truly are two different stories here. The wrong one is getting the media attention.

 

[Denny Crane]

^ There truly are two different stories here. The wrong one is getting the media attention.

When the Patriot Act was first passed, pinko lefties (among others) whined about its potential abuse. Yet it is one of these terrorism statutes used to prosecute these ranchers.

The more I read, the more it's clear the feds are strangling these ranchers' businesses.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Read this then, from a non-partisan source:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/10/fanning_the_flames_in_oregon_129260.html

The Oregon protests are a reaction to the harsh prison sentences meted out by the federal criminal justice system to a 73-year-old rancher and his son for starting two fires on their own land in 2001 and 2006. Dwight Hammond and his 46-year-old son, Steven, lit the first fire to eliminate invasive plants on their land, and the second as a backfire to protect their ranch from a natural fire. In the first case, 139 acres of adjoining federal land—grassland they lease from the government—was burned. The second fire, set to protect their winter feed from a lightning-caused wildfire, resulted in a single acre of public land being burned. For this infraction, they were subjected to a felony prosecution under a federal law aimed at arsonists and bombers who destroy federal buildings.

Absurd, yes, but typical in our prosecution-crazed nation. The Hammonds were convicted and sentenced to prison: three months for Dwight, a year for Steven. The statute they were convicted of violating carries a five-year “mandatory minimum,” but U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan found that to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. So the Hammonds did their time and were released. But federal prosecutors wanted a much bigger pound of flesh; they appealed the sentence.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government. Their reasoning was that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious offenses.” It cited draconian examples worthy of a Victor Hugo novel: 50 years under California's “three strikes” law for stealing nine videotapes, 25-to-life under the same law for the theft of three golf clubs, 40 years for possession of nine ounces of marijuana.

Essentially, the justices were saying that official insanity in other cases, imposed either by Congress or state legislatures, was affirmed by the Supreme Court—so what could they do? But political candidates and elected officials are not hamstrung that way. The Oregon case could be a teachable moment for liberal reformers and fiscal conservatives alike. One would especially think politicians of color would use the Hammond case to make a larger point. Not about the media, but about this country’s sentencing laws.

AUTHOR:

Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief of RealClearPolitics. Carl is a past recipient of the Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prize for Distinguished Reporting and the Aldo Beckman Award, the two most prestigious awards for White House coverage. Previous positions include Executive Editor of PoliticsDaily.com, DC Bureau Chief for Reader's Digest and White House correspondent for both the Baltimore Sun and National Journal. He was a 2007 fellow-in-residence at Harvard University's Institute of Politics, a past president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, and is a published author.

I am not arguing that the sentences were fair and I never have. And for a "nonpartisan" source, Mr. Cannon only tells one side of the story. The Hammonds are not completely without responsibility. You seem to ignore that. My "snark" (as noted by MarAzul) is directed at the out of state rabble rousers making complete asses out of themselves. If they want to make a statement, they can go back to their state of residence. The people of Harney County (and the State of Oregon) have made it pretty damn clear they want these people to depart. But nice job of using sentencing laws to draw attention from the real issues. The occupying mob has already moved on from the Hammonds. Now their focus seems to be on some sort of Wild West system of communism in an effort to distribute the land to the chosen people they feel should own it. What they don't get is that the people already own it. Like it or don't. And Thank God. Like any reasonable individual should trust a bunch of small time loose cannons to provide good stewardship of the public land when they don't seem to have a particularly good track record in their own state and on their own property. Whatever the issues, right or wrong, placing themselves above the law is wrong.....and criminal. You can argue all you want (and probably will) but it doesn't change that fact....

 

[Denny Crane]

I am not arguing that the sentences were fair and I never have. And for a "nonpartisan" source, Mr. Cannon only tells one side of the story. The Hammonds are not completely without responsibility. You seem to ignore that. My "snark" (as noted by MarAzul) is directed at the out of state rabble rousers making complete asses out of themselves. If they want to make a statement, they can go back to their state of residence. The people of Harney County (and the State of Oregon) have made it pretty damn clear they want these people to depart. But nice job of using sentencing laws to draw attention from the real issues. The occupying mob has already moved on from the Hammonds. Now their focus seems to be on some sort of Wild West system of communism in an effort to distribute the land to the chosen people they feel should own it. What they don't get is that the people already own it. Like it or don't. And Thank God. Like any reasonable individual should trust a bunch of small time loose cannons to provide good stewardship of the public land when they don't seem to have a particularly good track record in their own state and on their own property. Whatever the issues, right or wrong, placing themselves above the law is wrong.....and criminal. You can argue all you want (and probably will) but it doesn't change that fact....

They do have a good track record with their own land. The government is in their way of making improvements to the lands they're renting. 4 years to get a permit to build a fence? Tree huggers enact rules to protect the brush grouse only to have a wildfire burn the protected habitat; the fire worse because of the rules and lack of improvements.

Civil disobedience is breaking the law for a cause.

This is civil disobedience.

 

[MarAzul]

Oh, I know. I do not approve of the governments action. Most of the ranches in the that area are not workable with just the private holdings. This goes back to the homestead days when the 640 acres was the amount made private, with everyone knowing that the public land could be ranged and is the only way the private land could be profitable. Now they wish to change the relationship in a unilateral manor. The right thing to do is come to a new workable general policy, where the private holding are expanded to be a reasonable working size or repurchased by the Federal Government to do what is "in the interest of the Public". Perhaps a combination of both depending on the Ranch. But these shenanigans they are administering now are obtuse and embarrassing.
While the Bundy's may understand, I don't think they help at all, but the ranchers do need a voice, a cogent voice, and Bundy's is not.

 

[barfo]

Read this then, from a non-partisan source:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/10/fanning_the_flames_in_oregon_129260.html

The Oregon protests are a reaction to the harsh prison sentences meted out by the federal criminal justice system to a 73-year-old rancher and his son for starting two fires on their own land in 2001 and 2006. Dwight Hammond and his 46-year-old son, Steven, lit the first fire to eliminate invasive plants on their land, and the second as a backfire to protect their ranch from a natural fire. In the first case, 139 acres of adjoining federal land—grassland they lease from the government—was burned. The second fire, set to protect their winter feed from a lightning-caused wildfire, resulted in a single acre of public land being burned. For this infraction, they were subjected to a felony prosecution under a federal law aimed at arsonists and bombers who destroy federal buildings.

Of course, this is only one side of the story - the Hammond's.

Absurd, yes, but typical in our prosecution-crazed nation. The Hammonds were convicted and sentenced to prison: three months for Dwight, a year for Steven. The statute they were convicted of violating carries a five-year “mandatory minimum,” but U.S. District Court Judge Michael Hogan found that to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. So the Hammonds did their time and were released. But federal prosecutors wanted a much bigger pound of flesh; they appealed the sentence.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government. Their reasoning was that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld far tougher sentences for less serious offenses.” It cited draconian examples worthy of a Victor Hugo novel: 50 years under California's “three strikes” law for stealing nine videotapes, 25-to-life under the same law for the theft of three golf clubs, 40 years for possession of nine ounces of marijuana.

Essentially, the justices were saying that official insanity in other cases, imposed either by Congress or state legislatures, was affirmed by the Supreme Court—so what could they do? But political candidates and elected officials are not hamstrung that way. The Oregon case could be a teachable moment for liberal reformers and fiscal conservatives alike. One would especially think politicians of color would use the Hammond case to make a larger point. Not about the media, but about this country’s sentencing laws.

Minimum sentencing laws are indeed stupid. Who was in favor of them of writing them into law? Conservatives as I recall.

barfo

 

[barfo]

They do have a good track record with their own land. The government is in their way of making improvements to the lands they're renting. 4 years to get a permit to build a fence? Tree huggers enact rules to protect the brush grouse only to have a wildfire burn the protected habitat; the fire worse because of the rules and lack of improvements.

Civil disobedience is breaking the law for a cause.

This is civil disobedience.

Hey, nobody is forcing them to graze on public land. If they don't like the deal they don't have to take it.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Oh, I know. I do not approve of the governments action. Most of the ranches in the that area are not workable with just the private holdings. This goes back to the homestead days when the 640 acres was the amount made private, with everyone knowing that the public land could be ranged and is the only way the private land could be profitable. Now they wish to change the relationship in a unilateral manor.

This is hilarious. If the situation were reversed, you'd be insisting that the land belonged to the private owner and they should be free to do whatever they want with the land whenever they want, including keeping the government's cows the hell out. You'd be saying just because they rented grazing rights to the government in the past, that's no reason they have to continue to do so.

The right thing to do is come to a new workable general policy, where the private holding are expanded to be a reasonable working size or repurchased by the Federal Government to do what is "in the interest of the Public".

The government has been trying to buy Hammond's land. They don't want to sell.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course, this is only one side of the story - the Hammond's.



Minimum sentencing laws are indeed stupid. Who was in favor of them of writing them into law? Conservatives as I recall.

barfo

That's not written by the Hammonds or any of their "mouthpieces."

I'm not a conservative, nor in favor of minimum sentences - except in the case where a gun is used in a crime.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hey, nobody is forcing them to graze on public land. If they don't like the deal they don't have to take it.

barfo

They paid for the rights and had to put up with big brother bureaucracy. Typical, that bureaucracy failed as usual, causing harm to the people who need access to the land.

 

[barfo]

That's not written by the Hammonds or any of their "mouthpieces."

Still, it is only Hammond's side of the story.

I'm not a conservative, nor in favor of minimum sentences - except in the case where a gun is used in a crime.

Ok. I'm not either.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Still, it is only Hammond's side of the story.



Ok. I'm not either.

barfo

It's an independent view of the story.

The government chose to prosecute using a 9/11 era terrorism law. Careful, barfo, the 1st amendment means whatever is useful at the time and these 9/11 laws might be against dissent speech. No strawman.

 

[barfo]

They paid for the rights and had to put up with big brother bureaucracy.

Caveat emptor, isn't that your motto?

Typical, that bureaucracy failed as usual, causing harm to the people who need access to the land.

They should do what normal people do, write a scathing review on Yelp. And then take their money elsewhere.

No one would mind.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Caveat emptor, isn't that your motto?



They should do what normal people do, write a scathing review on Yelp. And then take their money elsewhere.

No one would mind.

barfo

If they used the land as they wanted, and people have for hundreds of years, nobody would mind. Except some idiots on the east coast who have no actual interest in how the land is used.

 

[barfo]

It's an independent view of the story.

That's not a useful statement. It may be independent, but it is one-sided.

The government chose to prosecute using a 9/11 era terrorism law. Careful, barfo, the 1st amendment means whatever is useful at the time and these 9/11 laws might be against dissent speech. No strawman.

I wasn't a big fan of 9/11 terrorism laws either. But the law is the law, and that one is very clear. You either change it or live with it. Whining about it doesn't help.

barfo

 

[barfo]

If they used the land as they wanted, and people have for hundreds of years, nobody would mind. Except some idiots on the east coast who have no actual interest in how the land is used.

Pretty sure the BLM agents and firefighters were not on the east coast.

You make a good argument for giving the land back to the Native Americans, I guess.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's not a useful statement. It may be independent, but it is one-sided.



I wasn't a big fan of 9/11 terrorism laws either. But the law is the law, and that one is very clear. You either change it or live with it. Whining about it doesn't help.

barfo

civil disobedience. Without it, blacks would still be forced to sit in the back of the bus.

The law is the law. Not if it's a really bad law. Or not if it's abused by zealous prosecutors.

 

[Denny Crane]

Pretty sure the BLM agents and firefighters were not on the east coast.

You make a good argument for giving the land back to the Native Americans, I guess.

barfo

Pretty sure the BLM agents and firefighters don't make the rules.

I'm fine with giving the land back to the Indians. Or as reparations for slavery. Or simply to the states to use as they see fit.

 

[barfo]

civil disobedience. Without it, blacks would still be forced to sit in the back of the bus.

The law is the law. Not if it's a really bad law. Or not if it's abused by zealous prosecutors.

There's no evidence the law was abused in this case. They were guilty, there was a minimum sentence.

That said, I agree the minimum sentence law is bad.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'm fine with giving the land back to the Indians. Or as reparations for slavery. Or simply to the states to use as they see fit.

So basically, you don't really give a shit who gets it, as long as the feds lose it.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

keeping the government's cows the hell out

I would really be freaking the hell out if the government was running cows. It is damn close to that bad having the government lease thousands of sections to PPL.

The government has been trying to buy Hammond's land. They don't want to sell

That what I hear! What's this about using a terrorist law against them after they don't want to sell? Wasn't that original fire that got away (2001?) before the terrorist law were enacted?
This doesn't sound right! Using the law enacted after the fire, but not until 2005 and they served that sentence. Something not right here!

 

[Denny Crane]

So basically, you don't really give a shit who gets it, as long as the feds lose it.

barfo

The Feds have no authority to own the land. Big Brother is not supposed to be Big, government is supposed to be local. The constitution spells out a limited federal government and enumerates (limits) its powers.

Owning land beyond post offices, forts, and roads is a right given to the states, then the people per 10th amendment.

The government only owned land in territories and sold it off or gave it to people (homestead) right up until the time of the civil war and reconstruction. That's why the feds rightly don't own much of the land east of Nebraska.

The constitution didn't magically change to allow federal ownership of 50%+ of the land in the West. What did change were civil rights amendments 13 & 14.

 

[barfo]

I would really be freaking the hell out if the government was running cows. It is damn close to that bad having the government lease thousands of sections to PPL.


That what I hear! What's this about using a terrorist law against them after they don't want to sell? Wasn't that original fire that got away (2001?) before the terrorist law were enacted?
This doesn't sound right! Using the law enacted after the fire, but not until 2005 and they served that sentence. Something not right here!

The law they were sentenced under is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The Feds have no authority to own the land. Big Brother is not supposed to be Big, government is supposed to be local. The constitution spells out a limited federal government and enumerates (limits) its powers.

Owning land beyond post offices, forts, and roads is a right given to the states, then the people per 10th amendment.

The government only owned land in territories and sold it off or gave it to people (homestead) right up until the time of the civil war and reconstruction. That's why the feds rightly don't own much of the land east of Nebraska.

The constitution didn't magically change to allow federal ownership of 50%+ of the land in the West. What did change were civil rights amendments 13 & 14.

Like I said, if you only consider the constitution and none of the court cases since then, then you might be right.

barfo