What would be the reaction of the armed militia if the Cliven Bundy family were Black? A Hispanic? A Muslim? Funny that scofflaws on the right are somehow OK guys but minority protesters criminals. Criminals are criminals and these armed scumbags are criminals. Laws exist for a reason.
Oregon Occupation: Protesting A Tyrannical Regime
- Thread starter Mrs. M.
- Start date
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
I'm pretty sure Loretta Lynch is getting some tips from Janet Reno on how to handle this.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
Actually, his harassment qnd first arrest happened under the Clinton regime.
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
What specious nonsense.
I suggest you read up on the facts and then try to think about it. The timeline of events is quite telling regarding the abuse of power by the Feds.
Full Story on What's Going on In Oregon - Militia Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution...
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #25
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
"Oregon Occupation: Protesting A Tyrannical Regime"
A ridiculous lie.
The Hammonds were afforded full and comprehensive due process.
They were found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers, and sentenced in accordance with the law.
Again, the fires they started were on public land, unauthorized by the BLM, and endangered the lives of firefighters battling other fires in the area.
This 'occupation' of Federal property is unjustified, unwarranted, illegal, and devoid of merit – no one has been subject to any 'abuse' on the part of the Federal government, no rights 'abridged' by the Federal government, no law 'violated' by the Federal government.
A ridiculous lie.
The Hammonds were afforded full and comprehensive due process.
They were found guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers, and sentenced in accordance with the law.
Again, the fires they started were on public land, unauthorized by the BLM, and endangered the lives of firefighters battling other fires in the area.
This 'occupation' of Federal property is unjustified, unwarranted, illegal, and devoid of merit – no one has been subject to any 'abuse' on the part of the Federal government, no rights 'abridged' by the Federal government, no law 'violated' by the Federal government.
depotoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 9, 2012
- 40,720
- 13,434
- 2,280
Being sued vs imprisoned? Please.
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #29
Do you mean the massive subsidies?
------------------ well , at least these Americans doing the protests pay the taxes to build the 'blm' buildings that they occupy OldSchool .
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #31
Uh... no they don't. That's sort of Bundy's whole thing...
CremeBrulee
Gold Member
Since when have the Hammonds and Bundys been close friends? Most of the articles I have read indicate the Hammonds and Burns community in general don't want the Bundys and militias there. The outsiders are making an already unfortunate situation worse. Schools have been closed and the local law enforcement is receiving death threats.
As always, the OP leaves out information that doesn't fit her conspiratorial hyper-partisan narrative. The sentences stem from incidents in 2001 and 2006. They were appealed to the 9th Circuit and vacated for re-sentencing. The Supreme Court upheld this decision by refusing to hear the case. The pair have been re-sentenced with credit for time served.
Even the circumstances of these fires is questionable. The first fire is suspected of being a cover up for deer poaching on federal lands.
"Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands."
The second fire, good intentions or not, was reckless.
"An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons."
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison | USAO-OR | Department of Justice
Add the Bundys to this event and it suddenly becomes a conspiracy in which the players are publicly claiming they will be assassinated if the subject is discussed in public. This editorial could have been done in a way that would have evoked some sympathy for the Hammond family in general. Instead, you cast an allusion to the President and supported it with wild conspiracies about federal agencies being unable to operate within the borders of the US and the BLM being a "Crown Corporation".
And please, please stop calling armed anti government militias and their supporters American patriots.
As always, the OP leaves out information that doesn't fit her conspiratorial hyper-partisan narrative. The sentences stem from incidents in 2001 and 2006. They were appealed to the 9th Circuit and vacated for re-sentencing. The Supreme Court upheld this decision by refusing to hear the case. The pair have been re-sentenced with credit for time served.
Even the circumstances of these fires is questionable. The first fire is suspected of being a cover up for deer poaching on federal lands.
"Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere” matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.” One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands."
The second fire, good intentions or not, was reckless.
"An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires” in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons."
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison | USAO-OR | Department of Justice
Add the Bundys to this event and it suddenly becomes a conspiracy in which the players are publicly claiming they will be assassinated if the subject is discussed in public. This editorial could have been done in a way that would have evoked some sympathy for the Hammond family in general. Instead, you cast an allusion to the President and supported it with wild conspiracies about federal agencies being unable to operate within the borders of the US and the BLM being a "Crown Corporation".
And please, please stop calling armed anti government militias and their supporters American patriots.
Compost
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2015
- 19,706
- 20,499
- 2,415
You are unable to read English?
Compost
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2015
- 19,706
- 20,499
- 2,415
Who said skin color makes a difference? Oh yeah. Just you.
Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #36
It's my mother-tongue, idiot. You made a claim. Onus is on you to back it up.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Compost
Diamond Member
- Sep 11, 2015
- 19,706
- 20,499
- 2,415
You claim it's your mother tongue but your comprehension is woefully lacking. They had permission to burn. Arson is the crime they did not commit.
CremeBrulee
Gold Member
The offenders in question claim they had permission. The government maintains the first fire was set to cover a crime and the second was done without permission. There was a burn ban in effect while crews were fighting wildfires. It doesn't seem likely anyone would have given them permission to do a controlled burn.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Correct.
In fact they had no such permission, as determined by a jury in a court of law.
Hossfly
ZIONIST
The OP meant that the federal government has never sued or punished the Bureau of Land Management.Get with the program and keep up with the grownups. Why do you want this thread put in the FZ or Conspiracy Theories? You're in the real world now.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Fuzzy Lint, Medical Issues, and Friendly Fire are Defeating the US Navy- Started by GLASNOST
- Replies: 1
-
NFL receives warning about potential change to Thanksgiving schedule- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
Cost of Colorado Medicaid initiative for immigrant families 600% over the estimate
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 2
-
The USCG Cutter Mackinaw rescues a snowmobile operator stranded on ice near Mackinac Island, Michigan
- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
