Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters

[davsel]

I had no idea this was taking place

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/drama_in_burns_ends_with_quiet.html

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

Law enforcement officials so far have not commented on the situation. Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff's Office and the FBI were involved.

Ammon Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page calling on patriots from across the country to report to the refuge – with their weapons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382511/Militiamen-federal-wildlife-refuge-Oregon-anti-government-rally-support-two-ranchers-heading-jail-arson.html#v-7175852518695942311

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbGdMKpHDDE

[cstone]

And the Hammond family at the center of this issue has distanced themselves from the people who have peacefully but illegally occupied the BLM office.

I suspect that just as the issue a while back with Cliven Bundy, Ammon's father, this issue is a bit more complicated than just a simple local folks vs the federal government.

Apparently the elder Hammond in his 70's and his son in his 40's were convicted three years ago of arson when the burned about 125 acres of vegetation in and around their property. Both of the Hammonds served their prison time and were released, however, on appeal, the federal judge in the case stated that both Hammond men needed to spend an additional four years in jail.

The whole thing sounds odd, which just reinforces my opinion that there are pieces missing in the puzzle as presented thus far.

[Irving]

I don't think this is going to end as peacefully as the Cliven Bundy thing did.

What ever happened with the Bundy thing anyway?

[davsel]

Protester's side of the story:
http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic

[cstone]

Twists and turns. Bundy got his cattle back but at some point he will probably lose his ranch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

[davsel]

WTF!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHyZQrMZ7lA&feature=youtu.be

[Bailey Guns]

Wow...first I've heard of all this. I can certainly empathize with what the Hammond family has endured at the hands of the feds. It sounds like they pretty much just want their lives and ranch and to be left alone. Speculation only on my part, but it also sounds to me like a lot of people, many from outside the area, are using this terrible situation to inflame an already bad situation.

This is not the battle I'd choose, personally, to start some sort of armed resistance against the federal government. If I was in the middle of it my thoughts might be different. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.

It's also a very complicated situation to understand with apparently decades of back story. I feel sorry for the Hammond family.

[BPTactical]

But wait- didn't former Atty General Eric Holder do something similar?
Why yes he did:

As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,”
Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed — and if so, with what sort of weapon.

Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”

[HoneyBadger]

It seems to me that Bundy and his followers have hijacked this unfortunate and likely unjust set of circumstances for their own cause. I would bet money that this ends like Waco. This could also be a strong political tool right before the election: "These crazies formed a private army to fight the government!" "Outlaw any organization that uses words like Militia, Liberty, Freedom, AR-15, etc." "Federal government has the power and the duty to intervene here (and everywhere)" etc.

I sure hope that this doesn't end in flames and dead bodies. It could also set several precedents very dangerous to what liberty we still have.

[Zombie Steve]

Biting my tongue.

[gnihcraes]

A page on the BLM website, since removed, listed the impacts of Bundy's trespass cattle. Among these were risks to people driving on roadways, destruction of crops on private property, damage to community property in the city of Mesquite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite,_Nevada), negative impacts on city facilities in Bunkerville, destruction of archaeological artifacts and unauthorized reservoir construction.[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#cite_note-55) The regional off-site mitigation strategies of non-governmental organizations were also delayed for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#cite_note-56) and a matching $400,000 grant from the Walton Family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_Family) Foundation to restore habitat for the southwest willow flycatcher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_flycatcher) along the Virgin River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_River) was delayed on the condition that Bundy remove the trespass cattle.

found that interesting in the wiki article.. non-governmental organizations were also delayed for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone,

looks like someone had other intentions on some of the land too. http://blmsolar.anl.gov/sez/nv/dry-lake/

[blacklabel]

Taking over the building is just bizarre to me.

http://bearingarms.com/breaking-12-15-guys-occupy-visitors-center-middle-nowhere/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate

[kidicarus13]

Taking over the building is just bizarre to me.

http://bearingarms.com/breaking-12-15-guys-occupy-visitors-center-middle-nowhere/?utm_source=bafbp&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=baupdate
The group knows it will force the government's hand and the media will cover it.

[BushMasterBoy]

Issue: (1) Whether and under what circumstances the Eighth Amendment authorizes a district court to impose a sentence less than the statutory mandatory minimum; and (2) whether a criminal defendant's waiver of appeal rights made in an agreement to resolve a case prohibits an appeal by the government.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the petition.


Moral of the story: Don't burn federal land.

[theGinsue]

Protester's side of the story:
http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic

Good read. While I can't say that I think the take-over of the .gov facility was the best decision, I can see where it will/has drawn media attention to the facts of the situation. There does seem to be many parallels to this and the Bundy Ranch situation.

Like Zombie Steve, I'll bite my tongue as to my position on this matter except to say that it's not good all of the way around and likely won't end well.

Prayers for all involved.

[bryjcom]

I think the proper term nowadays is they are "Occupying". This way, the left will have their back.



I've read a little about this stuff. The Hammonds seem like they've been railroaded and from what I've heard they have to sell their property to the feds as part of their "punishment". I'm sure that's what this was all about to begin with. The whole arson thing is a stretch when they were doing "controlled burns" much like the farmers around me do.


The Bundy's and the militia seem like they are riding the coat tails of this just to stay relevant...

[HoneyBadger]

There does seem to be many parallels to this and the Bundy Ranch situation.

Like Zombie Steve, I'll bite my tongue as to my position on this matter except to say that it's not good all of the way around and likely won't end well.

Prayers for all involved.


If I am understanding it correctly, it seems that the real focus of both issues is the unconstitutional actions (and possibly even existence) of the BLM.

[Gman]

Moral of the story: Don't burn federal land.
When the initial issue was ramping up and we had a thread discussing the history of the situation, I recall the Bundy family had been ranching on that land before it was ever declared to be "Federal".

[PugnacAutMortem]

I will say that it is completely screwed up to sentence someone, have them serve their time and then after the fact go "Whoops, we should have sentenced you more than we did so you'll have to go back to jail." Other than that, I don't know what else to say other than this is interesting and I will be watching closely.

[Monky]

Well I guess the blm and fws get to try out their new swat teams... What can go wrong?


Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

[Zombie Steve]

Anyone keeping tabs on Janet Reno and Lon Horiuchi?

[osok-308]

I will say that it is completely screwed up to sentence someone, have them serve their time and then after the fact go "Whoops, we should have sentenced you more than we did so you'll have to go back to jail." Other than that, I don't know what else to say other than this is interesting and I will be watching closely.

I for sure don't know all of the details on the judge sentencing. Sounds crappy at best.

As far as the Bundy thing, it sounds like someone is trying to jump on the media coverage of two other ranchers because the Bundys did not get enough fame. I don't see this ending well.

[osok-308]

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/oregon-militia-members-now-bringing-their-children-into-the-compound

Just found this, which is why I don't see this ending well.

[Skip]

Well I guess the blm and fws get to try out their new swat teams... What can go wrong?

Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.

Everything.

Which makes me wonder why this is happening. The Hammonds have asked everyone to stand down and are surrendering. If they want to fight, now is the time, yet they aren't.

Ammon Bundy's grievances are questionable, IMHO. He's the one running with this and it's not even his fight.

The Hammonds have been railroaded after decades of harassment. They took a plea deal on arson charges which FedGov then reneged and demanded a full sentence on an accidental burn of one acre (according to my understanding). We all know how many gov prescribed burns have gone out of control in our state, sometimes getting people killed. Anyone recall any charges being laid?

These guys are being prosecuted as if they burned hundreds of acres. Hell, the Hayman fire arsonist got a 12 year sentence which was reduced to six years and people died!

All of that set aside, this is certain to accomplish nothing positive while entangling the Hammonds in Bundy's nonsense. I hope it ends quickly and safely, but I'm afraid it won't.

[Zombie Steve]

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/oregon-militia-members-now-bringing-their-children-into-the-compound

Just found this, which is why I don't see this ending well.

Of course it won't end well. They're already calling it a "compound".

If you're going to burn people up, shoot them in the head or drop a bomb on a house in the middle of Philadelphia, it's easier to accept if:

Mt. Carmel Center Ranch is called the "Branch Davidian Compound"
The Weaver residence is called the "Weaver Compound"
MOVE row house is called the "MOVE Compound".

You get the idea. It can't happen here.

[HoneyBadger]

Seems like the best outcome for the government would be to basically ignore this group. By acknowledging/confronting them and either giving or denying them what they want, the government is bringing attention to them and lending them legitimacy. If the feds completely pretended like this was Fast and Furious and the media ignored them, the protesters would get tired, bored, hungry, and eventually run out of resources and the will to fight. If I was a totalitarian government, that is one option I would consider. The other option is to start a few "controlled burns" around that area and then blame it on the protesters and call it a cult suicide.

What really bothers me about this is the incredible number of people that are calling for the outright MURDER of these protesters at the hands of the government. That should scare the piss out of all of us.

[blacklabel]

What really bothers me about this is the incredible number of people that are calling for the outright MURDER of these protesters at the hands of the government. That should scare the piss out of all of us.

That's the damn truth.

[BushMasterBoy]

Good place for a F-22 to do a supersonic low level pass...

63170

[HoneyBadger]

63170


It does look like a nice place to set up camp for a the long haul.

[Great-Kazoo]

What really bothers me about this is the incredible number of people that are calling for the outright MURDER of these protesters at the hands of the government. That should scare the piss out of all of us.

They're doing that because to them. The whole deal is RACIST. "They" are wanting to know why the national guard was called to Ferguson and BMo to deal with "Protesters", but not for this "WHITE protest".

What these precious snowflakes, safe zone sensitive types forget is . Ferguson & BMo are rioters, looters and general low lifes burning, looting, committing acts against the LE's. This is a bunch of white guys staging a protest in a government owned place. SAME THING ERIC HOLDER DID, many a year back. . Nothing being burned to the ground (yet) rocks, shots fired at LE and NG personnel

IMO the Bundys are loose cannons. Then again there's different levels and definitions of Patriot. You decide what's what.

[BushMasterBoy]

If it was summer, I'd drive up there and talk them out of it. Too cold this time of year.

[Irving]

The Bundy's and the militia seem like they are riding the coat tails of this just to stay relevant...

It seems like the Bundy's have been turned into an enemy of the state by past events. I don't see them changing their MO and will end up being martyred.

[sellersm]

Here comes the FBI. https://www.intellihub.com/breaking-fbi-en-route-oregon-federal-building-occupation/


Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk

[Skip]

Here comes the FBI. https://www.intellihub.com/breaking-fbi-en-route-oregon-federal-building-occupation/


Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk

I think the FBI has been there for several months ;)



Seems like the best outcome for the government would be to basically ignore this group. By acknowledging/confronting them and either giving or denying them what they want, the government is bringing attention to them and lending them legitimacy. If the feds completely pretended like this was Fast and Furious and the media ignored them, the protesters would get tired, bored, hungry, and eventually run out of resources and the will to fight. If I was a totalitarian government, that is one option I would consider. The other option is to start a few "controlled burns" around that area and then blame it on the protesters and call it a cult suicide.

What really bothers me about this is the incredible number of people that are calling for the outright MURDER of these protesters at the hands of the government. That should scare the piss out of all of us.

Absolutely agree. Ignore them and then review the Hammond case with all it's prosecutorial irregularities. Of course, then FedGov has to open to reducing the sentence and/or honoring the plea deal.

If the Hammonds were black, a beer summit would have been called already and apologies would have been forced.

[Limited GM]

Lots of stuff about this floating around different social media sites today. Some are even saying that no militia groups in Oregon are even in the loop. Others are stating its as few as 15 people there.

If one was to dream up a scenerio, they could find it if they look.

The media is the biggest threat to America.

[Squeeze]

I agree with Skip. However; as HoneyBadger stated, there are American citizens who are siding with the government and calling for the outright slaughter of these people. That does bother me greatly. So if something legitimately happened where patriots had to rally together, take up arms and fight tyranny it's clear to see we wouldn't have much support from the Sheeple. Not that I would require that in order to stand my ground, but having to look over my shoulder as well as in front of me is a real PITA. These heathens who are only kept free by better men than themselves should keep their damn mouth shut when it's time to get to fightin'. Just when I thought societal decay had hit rock bottom, someone else comes along and proves me wrong. I can't say where every man's line in the sand is. I just hope this deal in Oregon all ends peacefully.

[Dave]

Read an article that said there's names like VanillaIsis and YallQaeda being used instead of militia, along with recommendations of Apache helicopters doing strafing runs or F-22's doing missile strikes. Bet these were the same people who cried about SWAT using tear gas on rioters and looters recently. Best thing the .gov can do is ignore them as long as they remain peaceful. If something like Waco or worse happens there I fear it could spark something neither side is ready for.

[HoneyBadger]

I agree with Skip. However; as HoneyBadger stated, there are American citizens who are siding with the government and calling for the outright slaughter of these people. That does bother me greatly. So if something legitimately happened where patriots had to rally together, take up arms and fight tyranny it's clear to see we wouldn't have much support from the Sheeple. Not that I would require that in order to stand my ground, but having to look over my shoulder as well as in front of me is a real PITA. These heathens who are only kept free by better men than themselves should keep their damn mouth shut when it's time to get to fightin'. Just when I thought societal decay had hit rock bottom, someone else comes along and proves me wrong. I can't say where every man's line in the sand is. I just hope this deal in Oregon all ends peacefully.
Valid points, but I'd bet there are at least 5 million people (probably closer to 20M) around the country that would take up arms to fight tyranny. I would have quickly jumped on board to such a task, but now with a family of my own, I have other considerations. The line in the sand has moved for me over the past few years, but I cannot say exactly how far. I would never hope for bloodshed, but if blood is what they want, they will certainly get it one way or another. The gov knows that there are 120 Million gun owners in the US and an outright war cannot be won, so they must be patient and continue with the "death by 1000 cuts" over several generations.

[Squeeze]

HoneyBadger,

I've had that talk with a few different people who weren't veterans or understood what it's like to dedicate your life to something bigger than just "themselves". I was posed with the question, "Why does it seem this administration is pushing so hard to disarm the citizens?" My reply is that it's simple. Since the Vietnam war, we have the largest group of trained combat veterans walking around in society. A vast majority of them who still vow to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic as well as a treasonous government. With an administration like the one we have now, I think that scares the ever living hell out of them. Not only are we trained, but even at 42, I'm still in damn good fighting shape. This is why I pray for a peaceful resolution for the folks in Oregon. I hope Obummer's last year in office he really doesn't do something so outlandishly stupid that it does kick off a second revolution. That is a powder keg that I hope never sees a spark. I agree with you and say that my line in the sand has moved for me over the past few years also. I know none of us are in Oregon right now and it's certain we cannot believe what the media is piping out. It would be nice to have first hand intel from someone who has boots on the ground out there. I've seen a few videos posted from people who are there and it seems to me they are not looking for a fight, just to get back what's rightfully theirs.

[Ah Pook]

Been reading about this. Can't see a good outcome on either side.

There is a history of harassment dating back to the '60s (and before). Sounds like a historical land grab.

Not sure the Bundys are helping the situation but after being a$$ raped by the govt, I can see where they are coming from.

Demonize and confiscate. Sound familiar?

[kidicarus13]

Read an article that said there's names like VanillaIsis and YallQaeda being used instead of militia, along with recommendations of Apache helicopters doing strafing runs or F-22's doing missile strikes. Bet these were the same people who cried about SWAT using tear gas on rioters and looters recently.




Good place for a F-22 to do a supersonic low level pass...

[Gman]

Demonize and confiscate. Sound familiar?
Nah. History is boring. I get everything I need to know from The Daily Show. [Sarcasm2]

[BushMasterBoy]

What I mean't by a F-22 low level pass, was to wake them up! You will be aware of what is going on, when you hear the sonic boom! You actually thought I meant use weapons against the protesters? Want to see the enemy? Look at my avatar!

[HoneyBadger]

What I mean't by a F-22 low level pass, was to wake them up! You will be aware of what is going on, when you hear the sonic boom! You actually thought I meant use weapons against the protesters? Want to see the enemy? Look at my avatar!
[facepalm][dig][facepalm][dig]

[Skip]

Valid points, but I'd bet there are at least 5 million people (probably closer to 20M) around the country that would take up arms to fight tyranny. I would have quickly jumped on board to such a task, but now with a family of my own, I have other considerations. The line in the sand has moved for me over the past few years, but I cannot say exactly how far. I would never hope for bloodshed, but if blood is what they want, they will certainly get it one way or another. The gov knows that there are 120 Million gun owners in the US and an outright war cannot be won, so they must be patient and continue with the "death by 1000 cuts" over several generations.

(Sorry I keep quoting your posts, you bring up good points/thoughts)

I have always thought/felt if the cause was just it would be more of a Boolean decision; yes or no. The fight would be pervasive, everywhere all the time. Kind of like the American Revolution... If you were a colonist there really was no avoiding it. Sure, you can stay neutral but that only means the outcome is decided by others. 70% of the colonists tried to do just that only to have the other 30% make the decision for them.

If these events inspire FedGov to start a larger fight against certain people, who also happen to be the producers (most capable), then that could do it. I see this as where collectivism eventually unwinds anyway; needing to control producers on the collective's terms. It will ultimately lead to a use of force either to eliminate certain people or compel them to work when the individual incentives have been taken. (Yes, I see both BLMs being used for these ends)

But this (like Bunkerville) isn't that fight. This could be more like the Boston event that frames opinions and sets plans into motion.

[Robb]

Maybe there's an agenda?!?
What better way to push more gun laws against your prime target.

I stole this from Alan West's FB page, but I thought it very appropriate.

[theGinsue]

I know it's just conjecture and "what if's" right now, but I need to put out a STERN reminder that we don't allow discussions about violent revolutions against our government here. Such discussions will bring the wrong type of attention to this site and individual members that none of us want. Tread lightly.

[cstone]

What if I see something revolting inside the government? Who do I say something to when that happens?

I know it will be past time to rise up when a President signs an Executive Order requiring the head of each household to prominently display the official photograph of the President on a wall in the home.

My my first act of rebellion will to hang a framed copy of Putin riding a Bear.

[Monky]

I like the term VanillaIsis.. it made me giggle. Those liberals sure are punny..

On topic, since apparently sarcasm just gets shit censored and deleted around here..

I really hope this remains peaceful. I don't see it being so, but I can hold on to hope. Ruby Ridge, Waco.. that's what I see this turning in to. I thought for sure the ranch in Texas would have ended that way (It was texas right?). There doesn't need to be a show of any force by the government or Joe Bob is going to get a bit too jumpy with a booger picker on the trigger.

Land grabs by the fed have managed to stay out of the news since forever... well... now they're drawing attention to it. Somewhere someone is going to start digging and find the BLM selling this land at a discounted rate to the upper echelons, maybe not current land grabs.. but those in the past that have long been forgotten. Whether they claim imminent domain or whatever (which I think is complete BS), someone has an agenda and someones pockets are being lined. Maybe now people will start to look and dig..

There is NO reason for this to turn violent except for the government to turn them into criminals.

[davsel]

I like the term VanillaIsis.. it made me giggle. Those liberals sure are punny..

On topic, since apparently sarcasm just gets shit censored and deleted around here..

I really hope this remains peaceful. I don't see it being so, but I can hold on to hope. Ruby Ridge, Waco.. that's what I see this turning in to. I thought for sure the ranch in Texas would have ended that way (It was texas right?). There doesn't need to be a show of any force by the government or Joe Bob is going to get a bit too jumpy with a booger picker on the trigger.

Land grabs by the fed have managed to stay out of the news since forever... well... now they're drawing attention to it. Somewhere someone is going to start digging and find the BLM selling this land at a discounted rate to the upper echelons, maybe not current land grabs.. but those in the past that have long been forgotten. Whether they claim imminent domain or whatever (which I think is complete BS), someone has an agenda and someones pockets are being lined. Maybe now people will start to look and dig..

There is NO reason for this to turn violent except for the government to turn them into criminals.

Nevada - where the BLM controls 68% of all the land in the state.

[PugnacAutMortem]

My my first act of rebellion will to hang a framed copy of Putin riding a Bear.

I might preemptively do just that because that picture is hilarious. I also like the ones of him riding a shark:

63196

[OneGuy67]

In reading a bunch of different web blogs and such on this event, I found a quote I rather like. Its from Karl Denninger: "There's an old saying that I've heard many times before-if you think its time to take a stand grab your rifle and head out the front door. If you're the only one out there, its not time."

[RblDiver]

The dispute at the heart of this incident (the two men of which have been distancing themselves from the militia) were two cases where fires broke onto federal land. One burned something like 100 acres, the other 1. The thinking is that the first may have been to cover up illegal poaching, the second was just careless in a time with a fire ban.

The original judge sentenced them to only roughly 1 year, saying that the 5-year minimum was unconstitutional against the 8th of cruel and unusual punishment. An appeals judge decided that, no, he didn't have authority to give that sentence and that the full 5-year term must be done.

Now, I really don't like the attitude of that appeals judge. She apparently thinks what they did was terrorism.
"Aiken compared the situation to 'eco-terrorism' cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed." From http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

Another article with a bit about the case and a bit about the militia: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/03/armed-militia-members-seize-federal-wildlife-refuge-hq-in-oregon/

[davsel]

The dispute at the heart of this incident (the two men of which have been distancing themselves from the militia) were two cases where fires broke onto federal land. One burned something like 100 acres, the other 1. The thinking is that the first may have been to cover up illegal poaching, the second was just careless in a time with a fire ban.

The original judge sentenced them to only roughly 1 year, saying that the 5-year minimum was unconstitutional against the 8th of cruel and unusual punishment. An appeals judge decided that, no, he didn't have authority to give that sentence and that the full 5-year term must be done.

Now, I really don't like the attitude of that appeals judge. She apparently thinks what they did was terrorism.
"Aiken compared the situation to 'eco-terrorism' cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed." From http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20151007/judge-sends-oregon-ranchers-back-to-prison

Another article with a bit about the case and a bit about the militia: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/03/armed-militia-members-seize-federal-wildlife-refuge-hq-in-oregon/

The other side of the story can be found here:
http://holdingblock.blogspot.com/2015/12/fact-event-hammond-family.html?view=classic

From link:

(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.

(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.

(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges, they accused them of being “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death.

[hollohas]

I have been following this for months. My take...the Hammonds are getting screwed by the feds. Plain and simple. They served their time as sentenced by a judge and the feds want them to serve more? That's eff'd no matter how you shake it, not even getting into the actual "crime".

If the Hammonds wanted to fight, it would be legitimate. But they apparently did their only fighting in court. That's their choice.

The Bundys had a legitimate fight at their time too. It's a pretty strong argument that the Feds can't legally own land. It's also a pretty strong argument that the Bundys were there before the Feds and shouldn't have ever had to pay to use American land. But the standoff at their ranch grew organically. It wasn't forced and that gave it legitimacy. They had support from far and wide without much effort. The people saw tyranny and came in their defense, and won.

This time, I think the Bundys saw the same sort of tyranny unfolding and thought they had a chance to bring it to national attention again. I think that is a honorable goal. But the Hammonds don't want a fight so the Bundys had to force the issue. It didn't solidify organically this time and that's the problem. The fact that they are from out of state is a non issue for me. Federal overreach is still a major problem even if the victims of that overreach don't want to fight. Tyranny is tyranny no matter where it is. I see no problem with them trying to point it out.

But they choose the wrong way to do it IMO. They now put themselves into a position that could easily end up like Waco. And at the wrong time. The admin WILL use this as fuel for their anti-gun fire. By forcing the issue, the Bundys have turned what was pretty strong support for their anti tyranny effort into pushing a whole bunch in the movement away...the media will label them as terrorists, the public will believe it, then associate the rest of the patriot movement with them, and support will wane.

I don't know the motivations for sure, but I think I have a good idea of what they are. They chose the wrong battlefield and they will lose. Unfortunately this loss will eliminate any small amount of progress the patriot movement gained at Bundy Ranch.

PS - I don't see the feds letting this one go away quietly. This is national news now. I predict the feds use this to make an example. The feds got embarrassed at Bundy Ranch. I mean, our federal rulers let the civilians stop them from enforcing a court order? You know that didn't sit well with them. They won't let it happen again. They can't let another incident encourage people to resist.

[davsel]

I agree with everything you stated up until this:


They chose the wrong battlefield and they will lose. Unfortunately this loss will eliminate any small amount of progress the patriot movement gained at Bundy Ranch.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that I can see this possibly having the desired effect and spreading into something larger.
However, being an election year, most will sit home and wait to see who our next overlords will be come January - anticipating some more hope and change.

[hollohas]

Not saying you're necessarily wrong, just that I can see this possibly having the desired effect and spreading into something larger.


I HOPE you're right.

[yankeefan98121]

I found this, it's a long read but worth it

oops, looks like it's the same info as post #4....

[Martinjmpr]

It's a pretty strong argument that the Feds can't legally own land.

Article IV section 3 cl 2 of the Constitution:


The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Seems pretty clear to me that the US Government can own land.

[wctriumph]

I found this, it's a long read but worth it

oops, looks like it's the same info as post #4....

Good read and I love the comments section.

[Gman]

What if the Oregon Activists Were Black or Muslim? (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-if-the-oregon-activists-were-black-or-muslim-debate-ensues/ar-AAgl5pa?li=BBnb7Kz)

Folks have short memories since they seemingly can't remember the "Occupy" movement.

[hollohas]

Article IV section 3 cl 2 of the Constitution:



Seems pretty clear to me that the US Government can own land.
Yes, I am aware of the Property Clause. I think I wasn't clear with that short statement and that "can't" was the wrong word to use. However, I do believe Federal ownership of 81% of the land within a state's borders is contrary to the intent of our Founders and the Constitution even while considering the wording of the property clause.

I will elaborate on that statement later after I leave work.

[HBARleatherneck]

The feds ownership of this much land in the west is BS.

http://assets3.bigthink.com/system/tinymce_assets/944/original/federal_lands.jpg?1422311293

[BushMasterBoy]

The political solution for this standoff, is for Hillary Clinton to go there and take off all her clothes. All the armed protesters will turn around and run for the hills!

[Mr Spooky]

The political solution for this standoff, is for Hillary Clinton to go there and take off all her clothes. All the armed protesters will turn around and run for the hills!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/556FMJ/hil_zpshw1e1hmv.jpg

[wctriumph]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/556FMJ/hil_zpshw1e1hmv.jpg


For the life of me, I just can't understand why Bill would have strayed with a woman like that waiting for him after a hard day of lying to the people.

[Gman]

Why aren’t we calling the Oregon militia ‘terrorists?’ (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-aren%E2%80%99t-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-%E2%80%98terrorists%E2%80%99/ar-AAgjc5H?li=BBnb7Kz)

The sometimes-coded but increasingly overt ways that some Americans are presumed guilty and violence-prone while others are assumed to be principled and peaceable unless and until provoked — even when actually armed — is remarkable.
[facepalm]

[blacklabel]

You can't say she isn't patriotic.

[Martinjmpr]

The political solution for this standoff, is for Hillary Clinton to go there and take off all her clothes. All the armed protesters will turn around and run for the hills!

I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a war crime. [hahhah-no]

[Ridge]

Why aren’t we calling the Oregon militia ‘terrorists?’ (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-aren%E2%80%99t-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-%E2%80%98terrorists%E2%80%99/ar-AAgjc5H?li=BBnb7Kz)

[facepalm]

Damn, that irony is thick as hell.

[Martinjmpr]

The feds ownership of this much land in the west is BS.



Having places to hunt, fish, camp, go 4 wheeling, search for minerals, etc, is "BS?" Having places to shoot outdoors without paying $$ to go to a range is "BS?" Really?

Ever wonder why so many people come from Eastern states to hunt, fish, camp and enjoy outdoor recreation in CO instead of staying in Kentucky or Ohio? It's because we have so much public land that is open for anyone to use.

The states don't have the resources to manage vast areas of public lands, so if they were to get the Federal lands they'd most likely sell it to a private owner who would put up a fence and a "no trespassing" sign.

Call me crazy but I like outdoor recreation.

BTW I'm not saying I agree with everything the Federal government does, not by any means. But I've noticed that a lot of the people who rail against federal ownership of property in the West are people who live in cities and don't engage in outdoor recreation. I've talked to people visiting from other countries and they are amazed that we can just drive out to the middle of a National Forest or BLM land and camp wherever we want, without a permit, without paying a fee or anything.

Over in Europe, just to use one example, there are very few forests or unoccupied lands that are open to anyone. Most are under private ownership and behind a locked gate.

Even in our own country, people I knew who wanted to hunt in the Carolinas usually ended up joining a "hunting club" and only hunting on club property because the few public lands open for hunting were so overcrowded with users.

Our public lands are an amazing treasure and well worth protecting.

[hollohas]

I became interested in the constitutionality of Federal land ownership during the Bundy Ranch standoff.  I'm paraphrasing, but they had said they didn't believe they had any obligation to pay the Feds for using the land for grazing in part because they didn't think the Feds had the Constitutional authority to own it.  The Bundys did pay the fees to the county however.  This struck me as wrong in part because of the Property Clause.  I was familiar with it at the time and it was what all the media legal pundits and journalists referred to in their reporting of the standoff.  At the time it seemed to me cut a dry, the Feds CAN own land. 

I read some of the letters written by the Bundys arguing their case.  They didn't give much detail explaining why the government shouldn't own land, but it was enough to encourage me to research it further. 

This subject is rather hard to research because it really wasn't discussed much in any of the Founders' writting as far as I've seen.  Normally one can use the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers for reliable insight regarding what the Founder's intention was.  Or, the Constitutional Convention debate records are a very good source as well.  Federal Land ownership really doesn't appear much in those documents.  But here are the arguments as I worked through them...

First, is the arguement that the Property Clause only applied to territories.  That, I think, is a pretty loose argument.  Not much to go on there.  I think it's fairly clear that all property is included in the Property Clause. 

Then there is the argument that the ownership of property is not part of the Article 1, Section 8 Enumerated Powers and therefore the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority there. This is pretty loose as well.  Section 8, Clause 17, called the Enclave Clause covers, Federal property and most people simply understand the fact it's purpose was to establish DC.  But there's more to it...


"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

Well, there it is, the Constitution says that Congress can own property as territory (prior to the formation of a State) or enclaves (property given/sold to the Feds by a State).

So far, I'm only arguing in support of the notion that the Feds can own land. Nevada for example didn't want to manage all that desolate land so they gave it to the feds. It must be Constitutional then...

But read Section 8, Clause 17 again.  Specifically the last part that says WHAT places Congress can purchase from the States and WHY.  It says "needful"...

That's it.  Sure, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Feds from owning land, and the Property Clause and Enumerated Powers both make it clear that the Feds have control over land they own (and by relation, have been granted the power to own it).  But what the Constitution does limit, is the Feds ability to ACQUIRE land from the States.  That authority is extremely limited by the Constitution. 

This limit on the acquisition of land was so strict that Thomas Jefferson, whom himself authorized James Monroe to negotiate the Louisiana Purchase , had reservations about Congress passing the Treaty without first passing a Constitutional Amendment giving Congress the power to acquire foreign territories.  In 1803 he wrote "The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it… it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this."

He even drafted an amendment himself but Congress disregard it as unnecessary and that it would stale the extremely important land purchase. 

The Feds may have the Constitutional grated power to own land, but the Constitution does not grant them the ability to ever have acquired all this western land from the States it in the first place!

How can anyone argue that the federal ownership of 80-some percent of land within a state border can be classified as "...for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" It doesn't, plain and simple. The Constitution doesn't say anything granting the Feds power to acquire land for no other reason than to manage, retain, to maintain, to preserve, to hold, etc.

The Feds acquisition of the land from the Westen States was unconstitutional at the very start and therefore their ownership of said land is illegal.

And anyone who has done any reading of the Founders documents can easily see that the Feds being a majority holder of State land is 100% opposite of the idea of state sovereignty and limited Federal government they so cherished.

A very good paper on the subject is titled "Federal Land Retention and the Constitutio's Property Clause: The Original Understanding" written by Robert G Natelson and published in the University of Colorado Law Review. The paper has a wealth of sources to research as well.

PS - I LOVE public lands and use them regularly. Even if the Feds mismanage much of it. But that doesn't change the fact that the Feds have no right to own most of it in the first place. The argument is valid even if public land is desirable. To me the Constitution is black and white and I believe it should be the law of the land above all else. It obviously isn't anymore, but that's the ideal I base my beliefs on.

[theGinsue]

Very good and informative write-up Hollohas. Thank you.

[WETWRKS]

There should be public lands...held and controlled by local governments who actually represent the wishes of the locals. This thing where federal entities hold the land and don't care what the locals want done with it is out of line.

I also read an article (dunno if it is truthful or valid) that pointed at the prosecutor having personal reasons for wanting to attack the Hammond family. Something about one of them testifying against her in a stalking case.

[Rumline]

[snip...]

Our public lands are an amazing treasure and well worth protecting.
Excellent points. There is certainly room to criticize the actions of the BLM in this case and others. However I think saying that there should be no (or substantially less) federally owned land is an absurd notion. Some of my best memories were formed while recreating in the relative freedom of BLM land. The stuff we did would not have been possible if the land was carved up and fenced off by private or corporate interests.

I say keep the BLM in check and advocate for reforms that cut abuses or that benefit outdoorsmen, but don't get rid of the land.

[Gman]

Having the land available for recreation could just as easily be done with state land/state parks.

[HBARleatherneck]

listen

The land you think the government owns for your benefit isnt. Its a checkerboard of land across entire states that you have no access to. It is not parks for the most part. It is sections of land (640) strung together or just in the middle of a hard working rancher or farmers land. The government then rents that land out. So a rancher or farmer then basically has no choice but to rent it or someone else will. Of course that other person would then be tracking across their land and destroying stuff. Then the rancher or farmer has to jump through hoops and please some piece of shit small time beuracrat to keep using the land. All of this was done to control Americans. Not for your city pleasure. If you like spending time outdoor on land. Buy some. Stop spending your money on city shit and buy some land.

short version. the vast majority of land the government owns in the west is not open to the public. so your theory is wrong. The government was supposed to eventually sell or settle all the land for Americans to own. In 1976 they gave the Blm the power to keep the land forever.




here, this is a picture for you. this is typical of the government ownership of western land. Not a national park or open public area as you are thinking.
I have no problem with National Parks, State Parks, Local parks. Owning most of the land in a state or close to it, I have a problem with. Keep in mind the states lose taxes off the land and that screws over the city people like you.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/mytopo.gmu/output-ha/WY-2015-ELK-125.jpg
all it does is break up and allow government control. it doesnt give you any kind of place to go to.





Having places to hunt, fish, camp, go 4 wheeling, search for minerals, etc, is "BS?" Having places to shoot outdoors without paying $$ to go to a range is "BS?" Really?

Ever wonder why so many people come from Eastern states to hunt, fish, camp and enjoy outdoor recreation in CO instead of staying in Kentucky or Ohio? It's because we have so much public land that is open for anyone to use.

The states don't have the resources to manage vast areas of public lands, so if they were to get the Federal lands they'd most likely sell it to a private owner who would put up a fence and a "no trespassing" sign.

Call me crazy but I like outdoor recreation.

BTW I'm not saying I agree with everything the Federal government does, not by any means. But I've noticed that a lot of the people who rail against federal ownership of property in the West are people who live in cities and don't engage in outdoor recreation. I've talked to people visiting from other countries and they are amazed that we can just drive out to the middle of a National Forest or BLM land and camp wherever we want, without a permit, without paying a fee or anything.

Over in Europe, just to use one example, there are very few forests or unoccupied lands that are open to anyone. Most are under private ownership and behind a locked gate.

Even in our own country, people I knew who wanted to hunt in the Carolinas usually ended up joining a "hunting club" and only hunting on club property because the few public lands open for hunting were so overcrowded with users.

Our public lands are an amazing treasure and well worth protecting.

[Martinjmpr]

The Feds may have the Constitutional grated power to own land, but the Constitution does not grant them the ability to ever have acquired all this western land from the States it in the first place!


The Feds didn't "acquire the land from the states." The land where the Western states are located was originally "unorganized territory." Eventually it was "organized" into territories under Federal control with a Federally appointed governor. It had to be this way because there simply weren't enough people to elect representatives. Eventually, after enough people settled there, they elected a territorial legislature, wrote a state constitution and petitioned for admission to the United States as a state.

When the states petitioned for admission, they explicitly disclaimed ownership of federal lands within their boundaries. They did this because they did not have the means of disposing of the land and they were happy to let the Federal government bear that burden (and pay for people to do it.)

Even now, there is no State legislature, to my knowledge, that has any interest in acquiring Federal lands because it would mean that the state would have to come up with an infrastructure to manage it, an infrastructure that would cost their state residents millions or billions of dollars. Yes, there are a few cranks and kooks out there within some of the states who think the states should take over federal lands within the state boundaries, but they are a minority within every Western state and there is zero chance of it happening.

As it is, Western states benefit significantly from public lands because people come from all across the country to use those lands, and the management of those lands is paid for by the Federal government, rather than the residents of low-population Western states.

[Martinjmpr]

I know this will sound mean but...

Look, I get it you are a city person without a clue. (not all city people are clueless, but you sound like it on this topic) The land you think the government owns for your benefit isnt. Its a checkerboard of land across entire states that you have no access to. It is not parks for the most part. It is sections of land (640) strung together or just in the middle of a hard working rancher or farmers land. The government then rents that land out. So a rancher or farmer then basically has no choice but to rent it or someone else will. Of course that other person would then be tracking across their land and destroying stuff. Then the rancher or farmer has to jump through hoops and please some piece of shit small time beuracrat to keep using the land. All of this was done to control Americans. Not for your city pleasure. If you like spending time outdoor on land. Buy some. Stop spending your money on cable tv, starbucks and other gay city shit and buy some land. unless of course you like socialism and want the government to buy you land to recreate on. maybe they could get you a cell phone too.



Nice try but 100% wrong. The "checkerboard lands" only applies to the Federal land grants to the railroads. Essentially, the "checkerboard" lands are those that are within about 20 - 30 miles North and South of the major railroad lines across the US. The Majority - the VAST majority - of Federal land is not checkerboarded at all.

Here is a map of the BLM land in Oregon, in fact, in the Burns area (hoping this site will let me hot link, if not I'll put it on my Photobucket.)

http://oregonhistoryproject.org/media/uploads/Surface-Management-SE-Oregon-1994-FS2.jpg

BLM lands are in yellow. Note that the "checkerboard areas" are only a slim strip in the middle. Most of the rest are contiguous.

BTW I studied public land law at the University of Wyoming. ;)

(edited to remove unnecessarily combative language.)

[PugnacAutMortem]

Look, I get it you are a city person without a clue.

When you start out a rebuttal to an opinion like this it completely invalidates any credibility you have. You might as well have written 100 lines of text saying "You're stupid and I'm a jerk". That would have the same informative impact as all of that mess you wrote.

[HBARleatherneck]

you attacked my response first. and you are still wrong. you clearly cant read my response either. I said checkerboarded OR sections strung together. Look at the Wyoming Gazetteer and see how government land breaks up the landscape.

The point of all of this is... this land is not open to what you said it was for (hunting shooting camping 4 wheeling) it is by and large land locked into private ranches. which the public does not have access to. They could sell this land, but now wont.


and what the government did by giving all that railroad section land to private business is bullshit too. all that land and mineral rights to private business.

[HBARleatherneck]

and I hate mma and shit like that too.



I hope that covers it pug.




its like half the shit that gets said on the forum. someone who has no clue decides they are an expert because someone posted it to their facebook page.


lets put it like this. (i dont want to argue or insult anyone, I slipped and should have bee nice)

The federal governement owning 28% of all the land in the US runs counter to the principles of a small Federal government established by the founding fathers.

[Martinjmpr]

you attacked my response first. and you are still wrong. you clearly cant read my response either. I said checkerboarded OR sections strung together. Look at the Wyoming Gazetteer and see how government land breaks up the landscape.

The point of all of this is... this land is not open to what you said it was for (hunting shooting camping 4 wheeling) it is by and large land locked into private ranches. which the public does not have access to. They could sell this land, but now wont.


The checkerboarded lands in Wyoming are all along the Southern side (again, running along the old Union Pacific line.) Go further north or south and the land is not checkerboarded and yes, it is open to the public for recreation. I've camped in the Red Desert (Great Divide Basin.) It's wide open for all sorts of use.

Go into Western Utah or nearly all of Nevada and most of the land is wide open, virtually all BLM with a few private ranches here and there. You can drive for miles on well graded dirt roads, camp where you want, hunt, fish, ride your dirt bike, etc. I know this because I've done it, many, many times.



and what the government did by giving all that railroad section land to private business is bullshit too. all that land and mineral rights to private business.

If they hadn't done it the railroad would not have been built. The government knew that without the railroad, the area wouldn't have been settled nearly as fast (or, at all.)

Look at Mexico: They "owned" all of the land that is now the Southwest, but they didn't settle it. Because they didn't settle it, it was easy for us to take it away from them after the Mexican American war of 1848. If that area had been filled with Mexicans it would have been much tougher for us to take it from Mexico (of course the irony is that now the Southwest is filled with Mexican citizens, that's why some of them are calling it the "Reconquista.")

The government knew that if we wanted to hang on to this land we had to settle it with permanent settlers, and the railroad was a big part of that.

[Skip]

Having places to hunt, fish, camp, go 4 wheeling, search for minerals, etc, is "BS?" Having places to shoot outdoors without paying $$ to go to a range is "BS?" Really?

Ever wonder why so many people come from Eastern states to hunt, fish, camp and enjoy outdoor recreation in CO instead of staying in Kentucky or Ohio? It's because we have so much public land that is open for anyone to use.

The states don't have the resources to manage vast areas of public lands, so if they were to get the Federal lands they'd most likely sell it to a private owner who would put up a fence and a "no trespassing" sign.

Call me crazy but I like outdoor recreation.

[snip]

Which we had in the west before FedGov "ownership." I just want to point out that this is a false argument, often repeated on many issues, that the only ones who can do a good thing is the Federal Government. The states have significant incentive to maintain open spaces for recreation among other reasons.

Also interesting is how certain DC politicians (e.g. Harry Reid) facilitated this transition of ownership.

So is there is a limit to the goodness of FedGov land ownership? Should they be able to completely lock out ranchers/famers/private land owners? Force everyone into the cities? If so, what is the point of having states when FedGov can use the tax dollars we are forced to pay them to buy land out from underneath us?

One of the reasons I find what is happening very concerning is there are some disturbing historical parallels to seizing land/rights. Notice FedGov will leave the agri-corps alone and let them operate. Sure, they get inspections/fines, but do people go to jail for five years? Do those companies have their livestock seized? Do they get locked out of long-established water rights? I don't recall any examples of that.

So they are picking who can produce food. Just like they picked who can sell health insurance. They pick who can be a banker (Federal Reserve policies) and they pick the firms on Wall St (via bailouts). They pick who gives the "news" (FCC licensing) and controls the narrative. They pick who goes to college, who gets to be a C-level exec, which determine who will lead all major companies.

This selection is designed to consolidate production with like-minded people so it is easy to control. It has the added benefit of eliminating independent employment making everyone an employee of a corporation where our individual rights don't exist (First, Second, Fourth Amendment). It's too hard to control millions of people with privately owned resources. But millions of people, rolling up to a half-dozen corporations in each industry, is easier and means the resources are centralized.

And when their ideas fail, as they always do, they get to pick who lives and who doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Martinjmpr]

The federal governement owning 28% of all the land in the US runs counter to the principles of a small Federal government established by the founding fathers.

You could say the same thing about the United States being a world power with alliances all over the globe and soldiers on just about every continent. Yes, we're a very different country than we were in 1776 or 1791.

[HBARleatherneck]

I would say the same thing.




I apologize to MartinJmpr for my lack of civility today, it was uncalled for. I apolgoize to anyone else I might of offended as well.




(MOD EDIT. KEEP IT CIVIL OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE)

[Martinjmpr]

I would say the same thing.




I apologize to MartinJmpr for my lack of civility today, it was uncalled for. I apolgoize to anyone else I might of offended as well.



[Beer]

[HoneyBadger]

Hey children, can we stay on topic please?


See what I did there? Now EVERYONE's feelings have been hurt! [ROFL1]




So they are picking who can produce food. Just like they picked who can sell health insurance. They pick who can be a banker (Federal Reserve policies) and they pick the firms on Wall St (via bailouts). They pick who gives the "news" (FCC licensing) and controls the narrative. They pick who goes to college, who gets to be a C-level exec, which determine who will lead all major companies.

This selection is designed to consolidate production with like-minded people so it is easy to control. It has the added benefit of eliminating independent employment making everyone an employee of a corporation where our individual rights don't exist (First, Second, Fourth Amendment). It's too hard to control millions of people with privately owned resources. But millions of people, rolling up to a half-dozen corporations in each industry, is easier and means the resources are centralized.

And when their ideas fail, as they always do, they get to pick who lives and who doesn't.

If anyone reading this thread doesn't see this happening, its because they don't want to. Excellent post.

[buffalobo]

Wandered out into the weeds with some good posts, about 3 different topics and a little cat fighting.

Start a couple new threads.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk