armed Muslim group claims God told them to occupy

[callmeslick]

BS, they are whackjobs, spawned by a twisted version of Mormon faith(Daddy wanted to have his own town, back in the day, to practice this variation, the subtleties of which I am not suited to explain). They've been taught a warped concept of why the Federal government protects large swaths of land, legally encoded and upheld in Federal Courts since the outset for a variety of purposes. They've been taught in the Bundy home to mistrust and even hate government.....all government. Anyone who looks into the preserved lands realizes that without strict oversight, those lands would be overgrazed, ravaged by miners and drillers, and polluted to death like so much other land out West. Some of these folks rant about the heavyhanded Federal government and suggest giving all public land back to the states, which in three or four cases, means into the hands of private ownership by known serial pollutors. So, we have a complex system which, to date, has held that we are better off, as a nation, to maintain large swaths of public lands. The principle goes back at least as far as Muir, Pinchot and Teddy Roosevelt. You can agree or disagree, but the idea of armed insurrection over the matter is batshit crazy, and that is, at the root, what these people really are.

[sigma]

Hey, wait a minute! Yesterday you were shouting in unison, that the major global problems are global warming, Ebola and Russians. Now, instead of Russians, global problem become Muslims. Moreover, in both cases the United States has spent a lot of effort and money to make them enemies. Who will be tomorrow? Chinese?
Flock of sheep.

[callmeslick]

Hey, wait a minute! Yesterday you were shouting in unison, that the major global problems are global warming, Ebola and Russians. Now, instead of Russians, global problem become Muslims. Moreover, in both cases the United States has spent a lot of effort and money to make them enemies. Who will be tomorrow? Chinese?
Flock of sheep.

you realize, do you not, that you look pretty stupid commenting on a situation here which you are clearly unaware of, and tossing around the usual dumb charges about Americans? At least, try and figure out what we are talking about and go from there.

[Top Gun]

You know, I know people somewhat from my experiences, and beginning to look into this, and listening to this man speak on this video (which incidentally was not linked from any of the news articles I saw)--you DBBers have this whole thing ass backwards. This is not an attempt to overthrow the Federal government. This is not a random, violent occupation. These are not stupid people. These are not trouble-makers. These are not religious nuts or delusional people. These are better people.

Ah yes, the "better people" who in the comments of that article are calling for executing federal officials. If that's "better," then I'll gladly be "worse" until the day I die.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Maybe I didn't take a close enough look. Mormonism is definitely out in left field. Funny that they withhold that in a lot of these articles. I also looked into the Bundy history a little bit, and some of the claims of land entitlement stuff strikes me as dishonest. Also, I do see an overly anti-Federal Government bend in the article I linked, consistently characterizing them as the villain. In part I believe this, however, since for the interests of the many to walk all over the interests of the few is not uncommon. We have a wonderful State Park not far from us, and I've heard there were some problems during the formation of that due to one or two land owners who's interests were contrary to the state's. I still say the whole thing is mischaracterized badly, the charges of "arson" for what is claimed to be a defensive burn just sound like an occasion for mischief on the government's part. "127 acres" is relatively small. When I see "arson" I see a deliberate attempt to demonize actions that most viewers won't apprecate the potential utility/value of. Maybe these people are not being honest about their motives, but laying all kinds of false charges against them ("terrorist", "arson", ...) isn't right.

@ Top Gun - "Comments"? Really?

[Top Gun]

Yes, really, considering you're attempting to use a very one-sided blog entry as your evidence.

[Ferno]

I came in here looking for a laugh.. and boy, Thorne really delivered this time!

[Vander]

Mormonism is definitely out in left field.

I laughed.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to someone chaffing when a one size fits all government doesn't fit them. I don't know if the Hammonds set fire to federal lands to cover up their poaching as alleged. One can argue that these people who are occupying the place have already achieved the most they are likely to positively achieve: bring some national attention to the circumstance, and some discussion to their motives.

The kicker, though, is the end game. Either die in a fire fight, or spend time in federal housing.

[Nightshade]

I laughed.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to someone chaffing when a one size fits all government doesn't fit them. I don't know if the Hammonds set fire to federal lands to cover up their poaching as alleged. One can argue that these people who are occupying the place have already achieved the most they are likely to positively achieve: bring some national attention to the circumstance, and some discussion to their motives.

The kicker, though, is the end game. Either die in a fire fight, or spend time in federal housing.

The idiots are now asking for food: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/o ... ZJglh9sRjx

I know Slick likes to think this group of retards represents "the right" but *surprise* they don't represent anyone but themselves.

[callmeslick]

the best part, NS, is that they are requesting that food be sent via US Mail to them. Oh, irony!

[Lothar]

Seems like everyone is trying to figure out who the "good guys" are in this crazy situation in the Oregon wildlife refuge. Here's where I've ended up:

nobody is right, and nobody deserves your support.

On the one hand, you have a group of wackjob Mormon fundamentalists who want to trigger a violent uprising against what they view as an illegitimate federal government -- not just under Obama, but in general. (One of LDS founder Joseph Smith's teachings was that the US constitution was divinely inspired, but that the government had strayed from it, and either he personally or the LDS church would "restore" the true divine government of the US -- which would end up being a Mormon theocracy.)

On the other hand, you have a group of BLM officials who have resorted to underhanded tactics to try to displace various residents -- not just these particular nutjobs, but everyone in the area over the last several decades -- from ranches and farms that have been in some of these families for close to 150 years. There are quite a few reasons to believe that the prison sentences for the central figures in this case are vindictive and personal, based on trumped-up charges, with the goal of bankrupting the family rather than of seeing justice served, in order to remove one of the last groups of holdouts and make it clear to the others that they too will be destroyed if they don't sell out quickly.

I'm hoping for a peaceful resolution, but I don't see either side as worthy of support.

[callmeslick]

interesting narrative, but you vastly overestimate the impact on the locals, by stretching it over a couple generations. Moreover, if the charges were so offbase, or trumped up, why did the defendants accept punishment so readily? I do think it is wrong tacking on a belated extra prison sentence, but can't figure why no one would appeal that more vigorously....which, is how these should be handled, in court, not by occupying a nature center. At this point in history,what 'incursions' came from expanding the nature preserve have been offset to some extent by a lot of locals employed by the preserve.
For me, there is no question which side is mainly in the right. I merely focus my mockery and scorn on these occupiers, because they represent a small minority of Americans, seemingly obsessed with the notion that if things don't go their way, it's time for a civil war. Such a profound undertaking, one would think they should have planned to have snacks and socks for the journey......

[Tunnelcat]

You know, I know people somewhat from my experiences, and beginning to look into this, and listening to this man speak on this video (which incidentally was not linked from any of the news articles I saw)--you DBBers have this whole thing ass backwards. This is not an attempt to overthrow the Federal government. This is not a random, violent occupation. These are not stupid people. These are not trouble-makers. These are not religious nuts or delusional people. These are better people.

Better people my rear end. They are law breakers. They have taken over federal property, which is property we ALL own and want protected from the abuses of the few. This is another "tragedy of the commons" case here. That Federal land is not just for the personal use, or abuse as I see it, of the ranchers who border it and it certainly does not belong to a bunch of so-called "patriot white terrorists" carrying guns and daring the feds to turn them into martyrs. At this point, if they want to live by the gun, perhaps they want to die by the gun as well, but that would only elevate them to hero status and their lives are not worth the ground they stand on. The Hammonds, the ranchers who are at the center of this whole dispute, the local Sheriff and most of the area residents don't want anything to do with these nutjobs and they want them to GO HOME.

Maybe I didn't take a close enough look. Mormonism is definitely out in left field. Funny that they withhold that in a lot of these articles. I also looked into the Bundy history a little bit, and some of the claims of land entitlement stuff strikes me as dishonest. Also, I do see an overly anti-Federal Government bend in the article I linked, consistently characterizing them as the villain. In part I believe this, however, since for the interests of the many to walk all over the interests of the few is not uncommon. We have a wonderful State Park not far from us, and I've heard there were some problems during the formation of that due to one or two land owners who's interests were contrary to the state's. I still say the whole thing is mischaracterized badly, the charges of "arson" for what is claimed to be a defensive burn just sound like an occasion for mischief on the government's part. "127 acres" is relatively small. When I see "arson" I see a deliberate attempt to demonize actions that most viewers won't apprecate the potential utility/value of. Maybe these people are not being honest about their motives, but laying all kinds of false charges against them ("terrorist", "arson", ...) isn't right.

You do realize that the arson episode was also used to cover up a little deer poaching within that protected federal land according to prosecutors don't you?

[callmeslick]

uh-oh, shits gonna get real, now:

http://www.breakingburgh.com/enraged-bi ... offensive/





on a serious note, I just read that electric service and phone service will be taken offline today sometime. As an Interior official in DC put it(rather well, I felt), "It's bone-ass cold up there, and maybe a long, cold, lonely winter in a remote wilderness will give them a chance to reflect on their actions:" Sort of sounds as if the plan is to expose these losers as such and let them trickle out as the situation gets to them,as opposed to stormng or even demanding that they leave the buildings. Where it will get interesting is when they leave the property and contact law enforcement in the nearby town or elsewhere. The possibility exists of arrest and very serious charges, if the Feds wish to make one sort of example of them, but are likely wary of making martyrs(hmmmm, just like those other radicals TB rails about) of them.

[Lothar]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ource=SFFB

Read the whole thing.

[callmeslick]

although it seems that the issue there was a pretense for a broader fight from the occupying idiocracy, I agree that mandatory minimum sentences for most crimes(if not ALL) are bad in several respects: The are cruel in many cases, for not considering any mitigation, they lead to overcrowding and other issues in the prison system, and they hamstring judges from actually administering justice, as should be the case. But, it sounds so good on the campaign trail to say, 'my bill will put these criminals away for X number of years, guaranteed', so the rubes run with it and never think of the side consequences.

[Krom]

Read the whole thing.

Good article. However its message is completely doomed, because mandatory minimum laws are there for a very well understood reason: The prison system requires an endless supply if inmates in order to remain profitable, which means the prison system requires mandatory minimum laws, and since the prison system generously shares their profits with both sides of the aisles in congress there will be no attempts to remove or correct such laws. The call for profit is unfortunately always louder than the call for justice in our economic system.

Ironically I bet most if not all of these militia men believe in "free market solutions" to the problems often associated with government.

[Lothar]

More background, from the Oregon representative who wrote some of the laws the BLM has been using to screw with ranchers:



But apparently I "vastly overestimate the impact on the locals"...

[Tunnelcat]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ource=SFFB

Read the whole thing.

I agree that the sentences for the Hammonds were a little harsh and to express their displeasure at those sentences, the locals should vote out their representative posthaste, Greg Waldon, who helped create those laws and sentencing guidelines. But I disagree with the armed militia response to those sentences, by people who don't even live in the area. It's lunacy. This is a democracy and a land of laws, not something we force change through armed insurrection. There are ways to get the laws changed if people think they're unfair. These wild areas are no longer the wild west anymore. There are too many people wanting to use these lands to enrich themselves, so now these lands need protection for future generations and the wildlife that resides there. Sometimes I think a lot of rural people tend to forget that and have the attitude that they can use the land as they see fit.

[Lothar]

I disagree with the armed militia response to those sentences, by people who don't even live in the area. It's lunacy.

Specifically, religious fanaticism: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

It's almost like I was completely right when I said earlier that both sides are wrong.

[Tunnelcat]

Maybe everybody is wrong. White ranchers don't own it, Mormons certainly don't own it and the Feds don't own it. The Paiute Indians were the original land owners and our white ancestor settlers stole the land out from under them in the first place. Maybe we should give it back.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... acred-land

[Sergeant Thorne]

A few things in there I didn't know about Mormonism, historically, but "Moroni" from their quoted "Captain Moroni" was the "angel" that supposedly delivered the book of Mormon carved on gold plates to the mushroom-inspired Joseph Smith. Smith later dictated the translation of it using divination, to someone who wrote down the translation but was not allowed to see the alleged plates. Mormonism was specifically against the American Indians, I believe, claiming a link to the Jews who killed Jesus. It was also originally very much against black people. They have an elaborate, fabricated history of the U.S. from pre-Colonial times. They also keep substantial records of lineage at a special facility. The whole thing is quite a trip, and it's very unBiblical throughout. Their ultimate goal is to become Gods ruling over their own planets populated by them.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You do realize that the arson episode was also used to cover up a little deer poaching within that protected federal land according to prosecutors don't you?

You know, I heard that, and maybe I need to read further, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me. How does someone need a burn to cover up illegal deer hunting? Anyway, the whole Mormon link is enough for me. That pretty well convolutes any motivations which might have been legitimate. There's certainly more going on than he (Ammon) was willing to admit. It's bad, in my opinion, that this will taint the issue, with regard to some Americans being opposed to the Federal Government overstepping its constitutional bounds. The constitution is our government's legal mandate--it is the one-size-fits-all that "we the people" actually agreed to, and everything done outside of the bounds of that, in my understanding, is basically illegal minority rule pushed through in whatever manner was feasible at the time.

With regard to National Forests, I'm actually in favor of them, and I agree with TC that this level of preservation certain would never happen under regular, private ownership. For me National Forests are awesome, because in my experience they are more vast, primitive and much less restrictive than State reserves. My experience has been moderate survival camping, and the main difference between National Forests and State parks is that in a National Forest I can pitch camp just about anywhere I choose. You have to be a certain distance away from water bodies (and trails, I believe), and that's the only stipulation. In local State Parks you have to camp in designated, groomed areas, and put your fire in a fire circle. Also State Parks don't usually allow open hunting, but restrict it to special hunting days (if at all). You're also usually directed to stay on the trails in our State Parks (judging by the signs I saw while actually on the trails ).

[callmeslick]

what I find downright bracing is the extent to which most all of America views these wingnuts as fodder for humor. All the recent years' talk of impending Civil War, threatened by assorted right-wing loons from Ted Nugent on down has evaporated into sheer mockery, by literally MILLIONS of Americans. So, let's all enjoy some homoerotic fiction at the expense of Vanilla Isis:
http://mashable.com/2016/01/07/bundyero ... uMdF2txEqy


also, I note in today's news that there is dissention within the handful occupying the camp. First off, it apparently isn't exactly a heavy handed response from government, since they are free to head into town for supplies(snacks). Apparently, one of them ran off and spent the food donation money on booze and went on a bender. Also, it seems a few of them are 'roughing' it at a motel, and the drunk is claiming he is being smeared because he disagreed with the idea of bringing children into the occupation(human shields, I suppose, for the cowardly.......).

[Tunnelcat]

You do realize that the arson episode was also used to cover up a little deer poaching within that protected federal land according to prosecutors don't you?

You know, I heard that, and maybe I need to read further, but it doesn't make a bit of sense to me. How does someone need a burn to cover up illegal deer hunting? Anyway, the whole Mormon link is enough for me. That pretty well convolutes any motivations which might have been legitimate. There's certainly more going on than he (Ammon) was willing to admit. It's bad, in my opinion, that this will taint the issue, with regard to some Americans being opposed to the Federal Government overstepping its constitutional bounds. The constitution is our government's legal mandate--it is the one-size-fits-all that "we the people" actually agreed to, and everything done outside of the bounds of that, in my understanding, is basically illegal minority rule pushed through in whatever manner was feasible at the time.

With regard to National Forests, I'm actually in favor of them, and I agree with TC that this level of preservation certain would never happen under regular, private ownership. For me National Forests are awesome, because in my experience they are more vast, primitive and much less restrictive than State reserves. My experience has been moderate survival camping, and the main difference between National Forests and State parks is that in a National Forest I can pitch camp just about anywhere I choose. You have to be a certain distance away from water bodies (and trails, I believe), and that's the only stipulation. In local State Parks you have to camp in designated, groomed areas, and put your fire in a fire circle. Also State Parks don't usually allow open hunting, but restrict it to special hunting days (if at all). You're also usually directed to stay on the trails in our State Parks (judging by the signs I saw while actually on the trails ).

The only thing I can think of was the fire was set to destroy any unusable remains left over after field butchering to make it look like fire killed the animals. The prosecutor is being a little mum on the details. But think about it, even setting the fire to rid their ranch land of invasive plants, as the Hammonds claim, it was an act that was really stupid on their part. We've been in a drought for several years here in Oregon, worse in that part of the state. If their little fire had taken off big and gone towards a town or the refuge, the taxpayer would have footed the bill to put it out at the very least.

As for the Mormon connection, absolutely none of the mainstream or local press has breathed a word about it here. The Mormon Church is powerful and has a lot of control in the West. If they don't like what the press is even going to report, they have to connections to squelch it.

[Lothar]

Both sides are looking worse and worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... -standoff/

[callmeslick]

that op-ed is a crock. For years, his 'livelihood' depended on all of us subsidizing 80% of his normal grazing costs out of our tax dollars. The current administration(and really it predates it) changed that. No equation with the other side, at all.

[Spidey]

Why the hell would ranchers resort to poaching?

No motive no crime.

[callmeslick]

Why the hell would ranchers resort to poaching?

never saw that demonstrated.

No motive no crime.

which is why they were never charged with a wildlife violation. They were charged with arson of public protected lands.
This justifies what, again?

[woodchip]

Thre real scary part here is they served their sentence but then some judge they didn't serve enough time. Of course if their skin color was black, that would of never happened.

[vision]

Of course if their skin color was black, that would of never happened.

Right, because they would have been incarcerated for much longer right from the start.

[Top Gun]

Or just shot in the first place.

[Ferno]

A bit of info regarding the bundys...

Bundy stopped paying his grazing lease in 1993. Since then, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been trying to have Bundy remove his illegally pastured cattle from federal land. This happened after the BLM initiated conservation efforts to try to protect the desert tortoise in designated areas. This was done mostly by the BLM re-purchasing previous grazing permits. Bundy responded to this by ranging his cattle pretty much wherever he wanted on BLM-held land. Enter the Hammonds, who by all accounts are criminals due to torching federally-held land, including a wildlife refuge... because hunting on BLM land wasn't enough. How are the two connected? The Bundys came running to join up with the Hammonds. Not much of a surprise to me seeing as they have been complete jackasses to every BLM agent they've come across.

[callmeslick]

Thre real scary part here is they served their sentence but then some judge they didn't serve enough time. Of course if their skin color was black, that would of never happened.

yeah, they'd have been shot or put away for 20 years.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Why the hell would ranchers resort to poaching?

No motive no crime.

Poaching is actually the part that makes sense, IMO. If they felt that the land was illegitimately held by the Federal Government, they might not have a problem with hunting it. Maybe they wanted a little venison with their beef. I haven't read much with regard to the allegations of poaching. What I do know is that it would take a pretty good fire to get rid of the remains of field-dressed deer (which have a way of getting rid of themselves through natural processes over the course of a few months). Fire isn't magic, and a grass fire doesn't burn long enough to destroy field-dressing remains, IMO. That's assuming they were even dumb enough to leave remains while poaching, when they could just haul the deer whole back to their ranch and easily dispose of the remains there. To me it doesn't add up.

[Tunnelcat]

They're now attracting even more armed nutcases. Something is going to have to give. We can't have heavily armed men sticking guns into the faces of the police, demanding that all our public lands be turned over to the states for their own private and personal use, or abuse in most cases, under threat of violence. They're nothing but greedy, self-centered, law-violating, arrogant SOB's who want ALL our federally protected lands turned over to private interests solely for private use, all to be raped and trashed and turned into wastelands, just for someone's profit. I'd like to see every nature-loving person, hiker, fisherman, hunter, birder, camper, environmentalist and other peaceful users of our federal lands go down there in mass and unarmed like a moving wall and storm into the place daring these bozos to either shoot them or go home.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-arme ... work-help/

[vision]

I'd like to see every nature-loving person, hiker, fisherman, hunter, birder, camper, environmentalist and other peaceful users of our federal lands go down there in mass and unarmed like a moving wall and storm into the place daring these bozos to either shoot them or go home.

I'm actually hoping to see some use of robotics, but I know that won't happen because it's cheaper and safer (cheaper being the key word) to just besiege them.

[Spidey]

Knock Knock
“Who is it?”
“Its anti-white terrorist insurgent robot #104”
“What do you want?”
“Come out with your hands up”
“Did you bring the Pizzas we ordered?”
"Yes" <electronic snicker>

[Tunnelcat]

OK, I'll try a different tack Spidey. What if the armed militia was a bunch of Black Panthers wanting the exact same thing the current occupiers want, freedom to use the land as they see fit? What do you suppose the authority's reaction would be then? I can guarantee you that there would be a much more aggressive response by either the feds or the local authorities and shooting be damned. But instead, the authorities are pussyfooting around these bastards, afraid of some sort of Waco-style anti-government freakout by every gun owning white male in the U.S. Wussies.

[Spidey]

What does that question have to do with a joke about using robots?