Posts
I
have, as promised yesterday, put some material together from both
sides of the argument on the occupation of Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge site.
I
have put a report from 21st Century Wire first as one that
seems to me, on the surface of it, to be the most factual.
I’m
not an American so I cannot be aware of all the intricacies of the
case. Some things, for me stand out:
The
Hammonds have already done jail time and been released. To call them
back saying they ‘haven’t done enough’ is something called
double jeopardy. You cannot be tried twice for the same offence.
They
have been described as ‘terrorist’, ‘white sepremacists’ etc,
and occupying native American land. No reasonable person would deny
that this is native American land, just as is the case throughout the
English-speaking world where indigenous populations have been
dispossessed.
This
is an argument, not with indigenous people but with the Federal
government which,as we know,at the end of Empire, is totally corrupt.
I
don’t see the government seizing land from some nasty right-wing
ranchers and returning it to its rightful owners,
What
I could see is that the government might have its eyes on land for
some other reason such as the exploitation of mineral wealth.
Right-wing
Oregonian ranchers may not be ‘progressive’ and some of the
followers may even be some pretty ugly people but if these people
have right on their side we cannot always choose our bedfellows.
In
the meantime some of the arguments from the conventional ‘liberal’
press, it seems to me should be treated with the derision it
deserves.
That
is my considered (not necessarily well-founded) opinion from
thousands of miles away.
Federal Showdown Looms in Oregon After BLM Abuse of Local Ranching Family – Bundys Lead Protest
21st
Century Wire says…
A
new front has just opened up in the long battle between America’s
small farmers and the US federal government.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Ranching family members Dwight Hammond (left) and his son Steven Hammond were sentenced twice for the same crime by federal official.
Late
last week, approximately 150 people marched to the Harney County,
Oregon, Sheriffs office in a peaceful protest of the unlawful jailing
of two Oregon ranchers, father, Dwight
Hammond,
73, and son, Steven
Hammond,
46, over accusations of arson for carrying out prescribed
burningson their family-owned cattle ranch in 2001 and 2006. The
family and their supporters accuse the federal Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) of carrying out a decades-long pattern of abuse and
persecution against the Hammonds in a coordinated effort to drive
them out of the family ranching business.
Les Zaitz
The scene in Burns Saturday morning as protestors gather in support of 2 ranchers going to prison.
After
a protest convened, a large group of supporters, including members of
the Bundy
family from Bunkerville, Nevada, left the public gathering
and headed 50 miles outside of Burns, Oregon, (Burns is located
approximately 4 hours southeast of Portland), to the Malheur
Wildlife Refuge Center,
run by the BLM. The protesters have stated that their plan is to
occupy the federal facility.
Malheur
National Wildlife building.
Because
of the venue’s remote location, only a few journalists were able to
report on the story over the weekend, but that was set to change on
today, with dozens of new national media outlets arriving and setting
up camp this morning. Law enforcement has already issued warnings for
people to stay away, and the Sheriff’s office has also informed
media to expect “multiple agencies” (state and federal law
enforcement) to be there on Monday morning.
Below
is a video statement (recorded on Jan 1st) from the protest’s
spokesman, Ammon
Bundy,
making an impassioned appeal for public support in a campaign for
justice and redress of grievances for the Hammond family and also for
additional support to help occupy the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge facility. Since the call went out through social media, a
number of supporters and militia members from around the country have
started to arrive on-site, with many more expected to arrive in the
coming days and weeks.
Watch:
In
his media statements, Bundy acknowledged that indeed many of the
protesters have arrived armed, but do so in lawful accordance to the
2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. He also made it very clear in
his statement that the group does
not intend
to be aggressive and will not “go on the offense.”
A
video update from protesters and militia members as they arrive on
location at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge site:
Last
week before the protest, a formal
appeal was made in writing by the Bundy family to Harney
County Oregon Sheriff David M. Ward, on behalf of ranchers Steven
Dwight Hammond, and rancher Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr. Fellow farmer
and rancher, Cliven
Bundy,
outlined he and his family’s views on the legal case, as well as
recommendations to the Hammonds and the Sheriff to protect the family
from unlawful imprisonment:
“The
United States Justice Department has NO jurisdiction or authority
within the State of Oregon, County of Harney over this type of ranch
management. These lands are not under U.S. treaties or commerce, they
are not article 4 territories, and Congress does not have unlimited
power. These lands have been admitted into statehood and are part of
the great State of Oregon and the citizens of Harney County enjoy the
fullness of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S.
Constitution limits United States government.” (see the full
letter here)
As expected, the media coverage on this story has been extremely partisan, with many left-leaning outlets like CNN already characterizing this story as a “Militia Takeover of Federal Building” by a “anti-government gang with guns”, without giving any real background commentary to the protracted legal controversy that had preceded events this week. One local affiliate KOIN6, even used the term “militants’ in the headline to describe protesters on site.
The
following report from Conservative
Treehouse, tells an incredible story of corruption and abuse of
power by the federal government, its agents and courts, in what can
only be described as a federal vendetta against the local family.
Here’s the Hammond Ranch case timeline…
The
short summary is:
in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and
son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight
Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,)
who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning
themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the
Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) heavily
armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control
of Malheur
Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.
They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.
Here’s
the long version: including
history, details, links video(s) and explanations:
HISTORY: (aa)
The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled
in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was
known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers
developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows,
and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on
their annual trek north.
(ab)
In 1908 President Theodore Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create
an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney
Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native
birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians)
became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(a)
In 1964 the Hammonds purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The
purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4
grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water
rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
(a1)
By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley
were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to
the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000
acres and stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The
expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds the Hammond’s ranch.
Being approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell.
Other ranchers also choose not to sell.
(a2)
During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in
conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a
different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told
that, “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”.
32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to
leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were
allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system
claiming it as their own.
(a3)
By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the
adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the
ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast
holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water to bypass
the vast meadowlands, directing the water into the rising Malheur
Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes
doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded.
Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed away and destroyed.
The ranchers that once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land,
now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless
ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede and the once thriving
privately owned Silvies pains became a proud part of the Malheur
National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
(a4)
By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers that
still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in
an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling fact
about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study that
was done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed that the “no use”
policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave
the refuge and move to private property. The study showed that the
private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced 4
times more ducks and geese than the refuge did. It also showed that
the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private
property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention
of the FWS and refuge personnel, she and her family became the
subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
(b)
In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source
and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon.
When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) found out that the Hammonds obtained new water rights
near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became
belligerent and vindictive towards the Hammonds. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an
Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found that the Hammonds legally
obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore
the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
(c)
In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence
around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights and knowing
that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds
tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the
Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father)
arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with”
federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony).
He spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second
night behind bars in Portland before he was hauled before a federal
magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was
postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d)
The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the
Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of
the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the
Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and
threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds
removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of
access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of
Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e)
Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS
arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any
given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional
“fence out state”, Oregon requires no obligation on the part of
an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain
control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds intended to
still use their private property for grazing. However, they were
informed that a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, that the
federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law.
“Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
(f)
The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences
or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting
their ranch almost in half, they could not afford to fence the land,
so the cattle were removed.
(g)
The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the
ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home
in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed
their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public
land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.
(h)
The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart
attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.
(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 spread to 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”.
(j1)
The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s
office and filled a police report making accusing Dwight and Steven
Hammond of starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a
Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would
meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When
leaving he was arrested by Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM
Ranger Orr. the Sheriff then ordered him to go to the ranch and
bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked on multiple
Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed
the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that the
accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant
prosecution and dropped all the charges.
(k)
In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S.
Attorney’s 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. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over
the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond
(Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a
store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to
avoid me”.
(l)
Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the
Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments
on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered
firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable
rangeland. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon
called Capital Press to complain that he had not made those comments
and request that they be taken down from the website. Capital Press
removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address
associated with the comments revealed it is owned by the BLM’s
office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the
Hammonds and was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he
wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot
and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers.
“They’re not terrorists. There’s this hatred in the BLM for
them, and I don’t get it,” The retired BLM employee said. Jody
Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon
office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified
the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
(m)
In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided.
The agents informed the Hammonds that they were looking for evidence
that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out
that a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many
fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or
on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never
felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”. Steven
Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire
to save the winter grass from being destroyed and that the backfire
ended up working so well it put out the fire entirely altogether.
(n)
During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did
not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail
that would have exonerated the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting
attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for 6 days. He had
ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the
demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed
1 day. Much of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds
acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was
not heard by the jury. For example, Judge Hogan did not allow time
for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings that the
fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the
Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal
agencies for years.
(o)
Federal attorney, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not
mentally capable of being a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson
and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13
at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty
had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had
estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that
Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible.
He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony
anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they
understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love
for their troubled grandson.
(p)
Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many
times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection
process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did
not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the
land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors
had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more
than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed
desires to be home.
On
the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict.
Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a
decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what
punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as
a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the
customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6
straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge,
unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist,
made a verdict and went home.
(q)
June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both
the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts
convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism
Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and
Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also
stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum
terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were
required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and
unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as
a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the
courtroom.
(r)
On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They
fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months).
Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.
(s)
Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and
her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife
Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank
Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior filed an appeal with
the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s
return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u)
During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM
first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they
would have to sell it to the BLM.
(v)
Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again
on January
4th, 2016 to
begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the
ranch for several years without them.
To
date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000
must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds
cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the
ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more
citations here)…
Here
is another video update from Ammon Bundy:
EST
Hammond Ranch sitting on precious metal, mineral, uranium, deposits
which the BLM desperately wants
Federal
Government’s Modus operandi to seize Hammond Ranch and Bundy Ranch
revealed
(INTELLIHUB)
— Renown Terra firma researcher dutchsinse conducted an
investigation of both the Bundy Ranch in Nevada and the Hammond Ranch
in Oregon.
“Let’s
just call it what it is. Human greed is at stake here. Who is going
to get the gold back there in the back country? Who is going to get
the uranium?”
The
video below is a must watch.
Additionally,
“as it turns out,” dutchsinse said, the “history on Gold Butte
[will] will blow your mind.”
“You
have farmers, ranchers, that I would say have been going out and
getting the gold.”
Dutch
then goes on to prove there are massive yellowcake uranium deposits
in the area.
Oregon gunmen want another Waco or Ruby Ridge — here’s what happened then and why it matters now
The
right-wing gunmen who broke into the visitors center of an Oregon
wildlife refuge with plans to stay indefinitely are apparently trying
to draw federal agents into an armed showdown like those in Ruby
Ridge and Waco.
Fox pundit: Oregon militia are not ‘thugs’ like black protesters because they fight ‘government gone wild’
Conservative
Fox News contributor Deneen Borelli on Monday said that armed
militiamen were forced to take over a federal building in Oregon
because the government had “gone wild.”
Fox
News host Martha MacCallum noted that the media had been criticized
for giving the anti-government militia more favorable coverage than
black protesters would receive if they took over federal property.
“Nothing
like the left-wing media using an opportunity to really cloud the
instance that’s gone on in Oregon,” Borelli complained. “What
people need to understand, what’s going on in Oregon, it is really
an overgrowth of government, government gone wild is outreach of
government.”
“You
have these individuals who are trying to save their property, save
their ranch because the overrun of government is not doing that,”
she continued. “Government owns a substantial amount of property in
the West. And these individuals were trying to save their property.”
In
fact, the incident in Oregon was sparked after Dwight Hammond and his
son Steven were given five year sentences for setting two fires on
federal lands that they were leasing. Although arson carries a five
year sentence, the Hammonds and their supporters have insisted that
the convictions were unconstitutional.
I Studied Oregon’s Militia Movement. Here’s 5 Things You Need to Know
Spencer
Sunshine | January
3, 2016
While
the news of the Bundy gang forcefully taking over a federal building
in Oregon may come as a surprise to some, the occupation is part of a
larger pattern for those who have studied far-right political
movements. Here are five points that provide a greater context for
why this is happening, who the occupiers are, and who actually
supports their radical viewpoints.
1. It’s actually a land grab — with guns
Despite
the talk about supporting the Hammond family in Burns, Oregon, the
takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters is
actually part of a long-standing campaign by radical right-wingers to
dismantle federal
land ownership in the West.
Some elected officials are working through mainstream channels to get
lands transferred to state or
county governments, or to allow them equal say over their use. But
the Malheur takeover seems to be an attempt to spread a tactic of
armed federal land takeovers. These armed groups are part of the
“Patriot movement”—the successor to the 1990s militia
movement—which has seen a rebirth since the election of Barack
Obama in 2008.
2. The paramilitaries are powered by conspiracy theories
“Agenda
21” was denounced in at least one sign at the march in Burns
that preceded the takeover.Agenda
21 is
a non-binding UN resolution recommending sustainable ecological
development. But it’s been turned into a conspiracy theory by the
right, which sees a sinister global socialist agenda in things as
small as building
a local park.
Patriot movement activists don’t see what’s happening to Dwight
and Steven Hammond as an unusual-but-unfair legal case. Instead, they
are portraying it as part of a socialist agenda to seize rural
private land and drive predominantly white farmers into the cities.
There, they believe the government will detain right-wing activists,
seize privately held guns, turn the cities into concentration camps,
and allow the UN (or China) to invade.
3. The ‘Patriot’ movement is a child of the White Power movement
Many
of the tactics and talking points being used were popularized
in the 1970s by the white supremacist group Posse Comitatus.
This group promoted the “Christian Patriot” movement, advocated
the formation of “Citizens Militias,” helped forge an
idiosyncratic reading of the Constitution, said the county sheriff
was the highest elected official that should be obeyed, and opposed
federal environmental restrictions.
Over
the years, these ideas took on a life of their own, even though few
of the activists using these ideas today are ideological white
supremacists. For example, they still try to recruit county sheriffs;
the sheriff in Harney County (where Burns is located) was asked
to provide
sanctuary for the Hammonds from
the federal government. He refused.
Activists
such as Cliven Bundy’s son, Ammon Bundy (who is leading the Malheur
occupation), claim that what is happening to the Hammonds is
unconstitutional. This view of the Constitution is based on a
position promoted by Posse Comitatus. They held that the Constitution
could be interpreted by individual right-wing activists in a way that
allowed them to have more jurisdiction than federal courts do. The
Sovereign Citizens are the best-known movement that promotes these
crank legal theories today. For example, Pete Santilli, who
livestreamed the Burns march and went
to the Malheur takeover,
promotes these ideas.
4. Federal government policies have allowed this situation to happen
Although
there is no written federal rule that is publicly known, those who
study the radical right largely believe that the federal government
has a policy not to directly confront armed right-wing groups. The
disastrous handling of the Waco and Ruby Ridge sieges in the early
1990s apparently convinced the feds to take a softer approach. This
seemed to have paid off when the Sovereign Citizens at the “Justus
Township” surrendered
peacefully in 1996. But after 9/11, even as the feds have cracked
down hard on all kinds of radical political activity (for example,
many eco-saboteurswho
never killed or injured anyone were sentenced under terrorism laws),
the radical right has received almost a complete pass.
The
April 2014 standoff at Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch—when Patriot
movement activists came to the aid of a radical right-wing rancher
who refused to pay his fees for grazing on public land and trained
rifles on federal agents—was taken as a green light for similar
actions. The federal government has not prosecuted Cliven Bundy or
his allies for anything that happened there. This has apparently
convinced the Bundy family (three
of whom reportedly
are at Malheur) that the feds will acquiesce to armed takeovers.
5. There is widespread opposition to the Malheur takeover
The
takeover attempt is not popular with many in Oregon. When a convoy of
Patriot movement activists heading to Burns left from Bend, Oregon on
Saturday, they were met with counter-protesters from the community.
In Burns, many in the town have objected
to the presence of the “Bundy militia.”
The
Patriot movement groups are aware of this. A number of Patriot
movement activists denounced
any support of
the Hammonds beforehand. The Oath Keepers, a national group, refused
to come to the march, saying the Hammonds had not asked for help.
Furthermore, the group said that Oregon members who helped organize
the protest would
be reprimanded.
And, although details are not known, it appears that the vast
majority of activists who are taking over Malheur are largely
out-of-staters from Nevada and Arizona. While they hope to rally
widespread support, that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Spencer
Sunshine is an Associate Fellow at Political
Research Associates and
studies far right political movements, especially in Oregon. Visit
his website: SpencerSunshine.com
PORTLAND,
Ore. — A group of armed activists who have seized control of part
of a federal wildlife refuge in southern Oregon appear to be aiming
"to overthrow the county and federal government," a local
law enforcement official said Sunday.
Harney
County Sheriff David M. Ward said authorities from "several
organizations" are working to peacefully resolve the standoff,
which began Saturday when an unknown number of armed activists
occupied an uninhabited building at the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge, about 30 miles outside the town of Burns, Ore.
"These
men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups
supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative
motives, to attempt to overthrow the county and federal government in
hopes to spark a movement across the United States," Ward said
in a statement Sunday.
There
were no signs of confrontation Sunday at the small refuge
headquarters building, seized in what activists said was a protest
against the federal prosecution of two ranchers and a bid to reclaim
local control of federally managed land.
"We
ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,"
Ward said.
"At
this time, we do not have any information that any other areas in
Harney County are in immediate danger," he said
County
officials announced that schools would remain closed through the week
pending a resolution.
U.S.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said the FBI was leading the law enforcement
response, in coordination with the Oregon State Police and local law
enforcement authorities. Wyden said he was himself heading to
southern Oregon to meet with local residents.
"I
understand why rural Oregonians are so frustrated about this
economy," Wyden said a news conference. "But the next step
from frustration is not to walk off a cliff, misled by some outsiders
who seem willing to take the law into their own hands."
Those
leading what amounts to an armed occupation at the small, remote
building say they are the vanguard of a national movement to resist
the government's ownership of vast stretches of land in the West.
The
move began Saturday after a peaceful rally near Burns, where more
than 150 people gathered in support of the ranchers who are facing
additional jail time for arson.
A
small, armed breakaway faction then moved on the wildlife refuge,
which was closed and empty.
Dozens
of protesters who marched through the town of Burns called for the
federal government to back down in its enforcement of public lands
regulations.
"We're
here to stand up for our brothers and sisters and show the world,
show America: You mess with us, you mess with all of us,"
co-organizer Jeff Roberts told a gathering.
"This
isn't an Oregon problem, this is a national problem, and it's
happening everywhere," he said.
Dwight
Hammond, 73, and his son Steven Hammond, 46, said they set fires in
2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect
their Harney County property from wildfires.
The
two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time —
Dwight three months, and Steven a year. But a judge ruled their terms
were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for
about four years each.
Hammond
has said he and his son plan to report to prison Monday in Los
Angeles as ordered by a judge, but the court decision has generated
controversy across the West.
Protesters
at the Burns rally came from as far away as Idaho, Nevada and
Arizona.
"It's
about this community being trampled on," one of the organizers,
who did not identify himself, said as he stood on the bed of a pickup
truck in the parking lot of a Safeway supermarket.
"This
is the public saying we're not going to take it anymore, we've had it
... . The people of the republic are tired, and it starts right here
in this parking lot, guys."
The
procession stopped briefly at the Hammonds' home, where supporters
greeted the elder Hammond on the front porch and sang "Amazing
Grace."
The
group at the wildlife refuge is apparently led by sons of Cliven
Bundy, the Nevada rancher who in 2014 led a standoff against federal
agents who sought to collect Bundy's cattle over his $1 million debt
to the Bureau of Land Management for grazing fees.
Hundreds
of self-styled militiamen flocked to Bundy's ranch and, after
pointing weapons at federal agents, ended the standoff.
At
the time, BLM and law enforcement officials worried privately that
the standoff would embolden the movement and cement Bundy's status as
a movement leader.
"We
can enforce the Constitution in Harney County and that's what we
intend to do," Bundy's son Ammon told reporters at the rally.
"We have a lot of plans."
His
father told Oregon Public Broadcasting that he had spoken to his son
and it appeared he and his cohorts were equipped with food and a
generato
"He
told me that they were there for the long run. I guess they figured
they're going to be there for whatever time it takes — and I don't
know what that means," the elder Bundy said.
Another
of Bundy's sons, Ryan, who also appears to be at the wildlife refuge,
told the Oregonian that the protesters want to see local control of
federal land.
"The
best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out
of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the
wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government
will relinquish such control," he said.
"What
we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with
the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."
The
main body of protesters sought to distance themselves from the
breakaway faction, which Ammon Bundy said does not consider itself a
militia, and the father and son for whom the protest was held are
similarly unaffiliated with the occupation.
A
number of Western conservatives have called for the return of federal
lands to state and local government. The movement has waxed and waned
since the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980s, which centered
on ranchers' rights and the money that could be made from timber
harvesting, mining and ranching, if only the federal government
didn't forbid such profitable endeavors.
The
movement has picked up steam in recent years, led by Utah legislator
Ken Ivory, who helms a national organization called the American
Lands Council that tries to persuade county and state governments to
pursue the ownership of federal lands. A watchdog group has accused
him of fraud in three states for his use of taxpayer dollars.
The
Southern Poverty Law Center, in a report on the Bundy standoff, said
the militiamen and the federal land-return movement are part of the
same spectrum.
"Anti-government
extremists have long pushed, most fiercely during Democratic
administrations, rabid conspiracy theories about a nefarious New
World Order, a socialist, gun-grabbing federal government and the
evils of federal law enforcement," the center said in the
report.
The
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, incorporated in 1908 by President
Theodore Roosevelt, has grown since its inception and presents
challenges to the ranching families in the area, who say they are
increasingly hemmed in by the federal preserve.
Beginning
about one month ago, Ammon Bundy and others arrived in Burns and
agitated locals, who wondered what they were up to. By Saturday, the
plan became clear, and the Bundys, via their ranch's Facebook page,
called for "all freedom-loving people" to help occupy the
wildlife refuge.
"The
people are finally getting some good use out of a federal facility,"
read a post by the Bundy Ranch on its Facebook page.
The
wildlife preserve is in a remote region of south-central Oregon, and
the protest overwhelmed the already limited Harney County Sheriff's
Office, which asked the public to stop calling on Saturday because
residents were having trouble reaching emergency dispatchers.
"A
collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a
solution," Ward said in a statement Saturday night. "For
the time being, please stay away from that area."
Don’t
Call Them Patriots. They’re Terrorists Occupying Sacred Native
American Land
The
armed right-wing insurrectionists who have taken over a federal
building in Oregon are claiming to protest “tyranny” by the
federal government in how the Bureau of Land Management treats
ranchers on federal property. This particular group of armed white
men seizing land and claiming “oppression” is clearly lacking in
knowledge of American history, and what actually defines “tyranny.”
As Indian
Country Today Media Network previously
reported, the land the occupiers are claiming as “theirs” is
actually land that the federal government previously stole from the
Northern Paiute tribe. The Paiutes used to own 1.5 million acres of
land, but have now been relegated to a reservation amounting to just
750 acres in Burns, Oregon, where the Bundy militia is currently
engaged in an armed standoff.
“President U.S. Grant established the Maiheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872. It is no coincidence that the historical reservation shares a name with the Maiheur National Wildlife Refuge, site of the current armed standoff.”
The
above map shows the progression of how much land Native Americans
had taken from them by armed white men from the beginning of
colonization to the present day. Before 1492, Native Americans
enjoyed full use of the land that had been theirs for thousands of
years. By the end of the Revolutionary War, whites had stolen
land down
most of the entire East Coast. By the time the Civil War began,
whites had stolen much of the Midwest and the Great Plains.
Colonization spread west to California after the Gold Rush.
By
the start of the 21st century, most of the Native Americans who had
once owned all 50 states were relegated to reservations in areas
largely devoid of natural resources and infrastructure conducive to
economic prosperity. As a result, these reservations are known for
high unemployment rates, pervasive poverty, and lower life
expectancy. The United Nations has called
on the U.S. government to
return stolen land to Native Americans.
The
Bundy militia occupying the Maiheur National Wildlife Refuge should
seriously reconsider their use of the word “tyranny,” and how
the land they’re claiming as theirs rightfully belongs to the
indigenous tribes that armed white men illegally stole centuries
ago. If they really want justice, they should dedicate their
cause to helping Native Americans have their stolen land returned.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.