myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
The Oregon Revolt explained
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Please provide evidence that the Hammonds are leasing their ranch from the Federal Government.


"The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. These were federal lands which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them at the time by BLM."


http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/or/news/2012/20120622_hammond.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Hammonds own their ranch. They do not lease it from the Federal government and are not "an occupier of the Wildilfe Refuge" as was asserted. They were protecting that property, a fact acknowledged by the government. The permits to graze on Federal lands were withdrawn a few years ago. Nothing I have seen suggests that they did not pay the permit fees as has also been suggested.

This bovine desire to leap to the defense of a massive Federal bureaucracy which has brought the full force of its power against a small multi generation farming family, is quite astonishing. They have taken away the Hammonds grazing rights, they have tried to cut off their water supplies, they have bullied them into giving the government first right to purchase their property if it is put up for sale, and now they have made that sale more likely by choosing to overrule a lower court and use a terrorism provision of the law to put the principals......who by all accounts are generous and community minded people........in jail for five years despite similar incidents being overlooked. The government clearly wants their property. Any fair minded person should question their tactics in achieving that end. But it seems that too many US citizens have forgotten how this country was founded as they sit in judgment from air conditioned coffee shops and sigh contentedly that a benevolent government will look after them.

Attached is a local account. Note the picture of the bunch of criminals.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/12/ranchers_fight_with_feds_spark.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:24 pm    Post subject: arefugerr Reply with quote

Please pay attention. The Bundy's are leading the opposition and occupying the Wildlfe refuge, the Hammonds are in jail. I am surprised that someone who grew up in another country would want to substitute their judgement (bias?) for a jury of peers. The right to a trial by a jury remains a fundamental right--for those not on a terrorist watch list. You were wrong on many of the facts--but predictable with insults.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those who are actually paying attention know that the Hammonds swiftly and firmly rejected the actions of the Bundys. That is a distraction from the facts of the Hammonds case and the Federal actions. Please cite where I "was wrong on many of the facts." No need to include unproven allegations and innuendo. Those are worthless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if these Jolly Ranchers oppose the dozens of guaranteed government loan programs to help ranchers? Or all the different types of grant programs and subsidizing programs to help ranchers? Or the crop insurance programs? Or all the dozens of other programs I left out?

On the occupy side, one wonders what they would do (since they claim to be non violent) if a paddy wagon showed up with 2 unarmed officers to arrest them. Would they cooperate? Or would resisting arrest be one of the other dozen charges a good prosecutor will nail them with?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J64TWB



Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, witnesses at the trial testified the hammonds illegally slaughtered deer during a hunting party on BLM property and started the fire to cover up the bloody mess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the attitude of many on the right who have made their living by leasing grazing or mineral interests from public property:

Quote:
They have taken away the Hammonds grazing rights


Now follow closely, this was written above by poinster and was in the NPR article, but apparently escaped the attention of those besotted by hatred. The Hammonds had grazing leases, which are fundamentally different from property rights, and they had those leases during the period in which they committed crimes for which a jury of their peers convicted them. You got that one wrong. Those leases were in a Wildlife refuge, where other users also have an interest in using the property. The disputes that the Hammonds had with the BLM go back to at least 1986.

Debates between different interest groups over the US-held lands in the West go back decades, and there are carefully established procedures for trying to make reasonable accommodations for all users. Their are environmental groups that fight uses such as grazing, not to mention uses like snowmobiling. None of the interest groups have the right to exclude the other interest groups unless there is a compelling public interest. In fact, land managers, whether they manage parks or forests insist, based on the best science, that grazing is one of the tools that they need to manage the land. Here in the East Bay parks, the introduction of European grasses led to vegetation changes that have forced out many native species. Without grazing it is impossible to manage the land for habitat or recreation, and fire hazards go up. Responsible grazing contractors are valued and treated as partners.

However, throughout the West there are those that have long held grazing leases that are in many ways their own worst enemies. They overgraze Federal land, while grazing their own on a sustainable basis--something readily seen from aerial photographs. In this case, the record establishes that they have flaunted the rules and engaged in a feud with people who have a responsibility to manage the land for all users, not just grazing.

Perhaps they, like mrgybe, used every opportunity they had to act as if they were entitled to the land, insult the BLM managers, ignore the conditions in their lease, and manage land outside their own holdings with fire. But I guess 30 years of this behavior is not a problem if you just hate government enough.

What the Bundy's, Hammonds, and mrgybe's of the world forget is that each of these programs, some regulatory and some administrative review of grazing leases, was developed because there was a raging controversy in the courts. In such cases, legislatures have carved out a role for a public agency to resolve those disputes administratively rather than in the courts. Some of the sour grapes you hear from those always kvetching about regulations reflects their inability to get what they want under the rules of the game, inability to convince Congress or a state legislature to change the rules, and thus they blame those who administer the rules.

Sad to see such unreasoning rage. Perhaps a little prayer would give them comfort.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting reading. Are Dwight and Steven Hammond getting a raw deal as some here like to claim? I'm thinking that they got their due.


http://landrights.org/or/Hammond/FINAL-Decision-Hammond_Redacted.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, but there are different facts inside the bubble where the only culprits are the government and Muslims. Thanks for the posting. Multiple fires in 2006. Grazing under lease since 1964. Acted like they owned the land.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17744
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For a historical perspective, written by Adrian Covert:

Quote:
An armed group of American citizens seized control of a federal building at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon on Saturday, vowing “to kill or be killed” in defense of their occupation. The militants are quick to invoke liberty and the Constitution, and to drape themselves in the American flag.

The most important question here (and there are many) is whether or not violence, or the threat of violence, to coerce a democratically elected government is ever justified. Given the depressing state of American politics, what’s needed are unifying voices — unimpeachable authorities of patriotism and public virtue — to provide moral clarity.

What’s needed is George Washington.

In 1786, militant farmers, led by charismatic Revolutionary War hero Daniel Shays, seized state government buildings in rural Massachusetts and marched on a federal munitions cache in protest of state tax laws. The federal government at the time was operating under the Articles of Confederation and lacked resources to put down the rebellion. Washington, in retirement at Mount Vernon, wrote to Henry Lee of Virginia that he was “mortified beyond expression” and to James Madison that the nation was “fast verging to anarchy.”

“Without some alteration in our political creed,” wrote Washington, “the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expense of much blood and treasure, must fall.” Even Thomas Jefferson, whose white-hot rhetoric on rebellion and tyranny is often quoted by antigovernment radicals, called the rebellion “absolutely unjustifiable.”

Which leads to the part of American history that today’s antigovernment radicals would rather ignore: The federal government’s feeble response to Shays’ Rebellion, as the uprising came to be known, had a direct impact in the calling of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and the creation of the federal government as we now know it. It may come as a shock to radicals, but the Constitution they supposedly revere was created, in part, to strengthen the federal government’s hand in the face of internal rebellion.

The new federal system was put to the test in 1794 after Congress passed a tax on distilled spirits to help pay off Revolutionary War debts. The “whiskey tax,” as it came to be known, was extremely unpopular in the grain-growing regions of western Pennsylvania, where militants attacked federal tax collectors and seized local government buildings. Washington, by then president, responded by marching 13,000 troops into western Pennsylvania to crush the rebellion, becoming the first and only sitting president to lead troops in the field. “A small portion of the United States,” Washington wrote, cannot “dictate to the whole union.”

The Shays’ and Whiskey rebellions demonstrate the profound seriousness with which Washington and other Founding Fathers took their republican ideals, particularly in the role of representation in establishing legitimacy. It’s one thing to make war against a monarchy that denied representation, but to take up arms against an elected government was tantamount to anarchy, and came with the risk of getting yourself surrounded by cannon and cavalry.

Don’t let yourself be fooled: The armed media event in Oregon rests on a warped brand of patriotism that thrives on ignorance of American history.


Adrian Covert is a San Francisco resident and author of the forthcoming book, “Taverns of the American Revolution” (Insight Editions, Spring 2016).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group