Thread: Right Wing Militia Seizes Federal Building in Oregon

Ted Bundy came to Starke end.

Did wear Yellow shirts.?

Cliven Bundy. Just Google it, before you shoot him.

Jeez its all over a Tortoise.

Damn troublemakers.

Originally Posted by Humbert

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

Why fight them. Starve them out.

Here Oz UK they'd ignore them but of course these folks will attract every whacko shock jock schlock armageddon outta here fellow travellers.
Waco taught em you don't fuck with the Feds, after a bleat these nobodies will revert to their natural state, armed inbred redneck

They seem to have a greivance of some kind. I have yet to figure out what it is.
They keep saying no one will listen, but to what?

Social media questions lame response to militant group occupying Oregon wildlife park
JANUARY 4, 201611:14AM

Protesters march on Court Avenue in support of an Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson. Les Zaitz/The Oregonian via AP).
Nick Whighamnews.com.au
Email a friend
A GROUP of men in the US storm a federal government building armed to the teeth and declare a plan to occupy it for years.
Cue pandemonium, right? Well, not so much.
Despite the sensational actions of the group, the response from the American media has been regarded by many as tepid, disinterested and hypocritical.
The top trending hashtag on Twitter this morning was #OregonUnderAttack but the bulk of the activity has been from those lamenting the double standards shown by the American media and authorities, with many highlighting the hypocrisy of the reaction in general.
Here’s what happened:
Over the weekend, an armed group of American ranchers took over a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon and called on “fellow patriots” to grab their guns and join them in the fight.
The takeover followed a peaceful march held by the group in support for ranchers Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, who are scheduled to report to federal prison this week after being convicted of arson.
The Hammond ranchers say they lit the fires — which burned 130 acres of federally-leased land — to reduce the growth of invasive plants and to protect their property from wildfires. But the prosecution alleged they did so to cover up poaching. The father and son were convicted in 2012 and have already served jail time (the father three months, the son one year) but now must return for an additional term of about four years after a federal judge overruled the initial sentencing.
Among the militant group are three brothers from the controversial Bundy family. The patriarch of the family is Cliven Bundy who was at the centre of a dramatic standoff with federal officials in 2014 over his right to allow cows to graze on federal land. Similar to the situation in Oregon, the Bundy family were joined by armed supporters and the incident turned into a national flashpoint for anti-government sentiment among libertarians.
A Bundy family member told local media there are 150 people in the group occupying the wildlife refuge in Oregon, but nearby reporters say the number of men is likely closer to 15.
The men say they are willing to use force and violence if authorities try to remove them from their post.
“I didn’t come here to shoot, I came here to die,” one of the men told a reporter on the outskirts of the wildlife park.
A local school district has announced it will keep schools closed all week due to the standoff.
So far no substantial police force has been deployed to the area. Police sheriff Dave Ward told locals to stay away from the park as authorities work to defuse the situation.
“I haven’t seen a single law enforcement vehicle out here,” a local reported at the scene posted on Twitter this morning.
In response, social media has been ablaze with those flabbergasted by the tepid reaction from authorities and the media.
Much of the discontent has been around the language used to describe the group and the media’s reticence to label their actions as a form of terrorism.








WHO ARE THE MILITANTS?
The group responsible for the armed takeover are made up of several known anti-government militants.
The most notable of which are not local Oregon residents, but rather a small group of individuals that travel the country and attach themselves to various local fights against the federal government, typically over land rights.
Ryan Payne, an Army veteran from Montana, is among those in Oregon and was also a part of the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada and was considered a leader of the incident.
Another former military man, Blaine Cooper, is among the group. He too was in Nevada and became known for criticising a fellow militant group known as the Oath Keepers after they left the standoff for fear of a drone attack by the government. He has also reportedly been banned from Facebook in the past after posting videos of drug cartels crossing the US-Mexican border.
An ex-marine named Jon Ritzheimer, who is notorious for his hatred of Islam, is also believed to be involved.
Jon Ritzheimer.
Jon Ritzheimer.
Blaine Cooper.
Blaine Cooper.
The Oregon group appears to be led by Ammon Bundy, son of Cliven Bundy. He posted a video on his Facebook page on New Year’s Eve asking for militia members to come help him. He said “this is not a time to stand down. It’s a time to stand up and come to Harney County,” where the federal wildlife park is located.
In an interview with reporters late Saturday night, Bundy said he and others were occupying a building at the wildlife refuge because “the people have been abused long enough.”
“I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we’ll be in a position where we’ll be no longer able to do so,” he said.


His concerns were echoed by his brother Ryan Bundy who is also in the group occupying the park.
“The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area ... come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control,” he told the Oregonian.
“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.”
A third Bundy son is also believed to be with the group.
Despite their stated desire to avenge the sentencing of the Hammond ranchers, the two men don’t welcome the help. They have deliberately tried to distance themselves from the family and the militant group.
“Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organisation speak for the Hammond family,” their lawyer wrote to sheriff Ward, reports CNN.
The Hammonds are expected to turn themselves into the authorities and the standoff will continue.
US authorities say they are monitoring the situation and formulating a response, but the occupiers say they are willing to fight — and die — to reclaim the land they see as constitutionally belonging to them.

#OregonUnderAttack, Ammon Bundy and militia take over Oregon wildlife park

Cut off power and close access roads and see how long they last in the freezing winter.
15 angry armed idiots trapped in a cabin in the mountains in bitter cold snow and ice.
Tarantino could make a movie about it, he could call it Refuge dogs.

Where there is smoke there is fire...ARSON conviction...BURNS , Oregon...I smell a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Cut off power and close access roads and see how long they last in the freezing winter.
15 angry armed idiots trapped in a cabin in the mountains in bitter cold snow and ice.
Tarantino could make a movie about it, he could call it Refuge dogs.

or Plump Faction?

What is always remarkable with these red necks is what they lack in intelligence ,foresight,compassion they make up for in the waistline,starve em out

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Social media questions lame response to

But that is because they are nothing, and nobody. I hardly believe these lamebrains deserve a Waco response- let them publicise their idiocy.

hile 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, , 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-saboteurs who 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.

5 Things You Need to Know About Oregon's Patriot Movement

5 Things You Need to Know About Oregon's Patriot Movement

As has been mentioned, they don't need to be confronted.
Just close the roads to incoming traffic, cut off the power and forget about them.

These nuts are trying to provoke a reaction. A confrontation would play into their hands. They can hold out a long time because they probably have lots of fuel and generators. Don't give them any publicity.

I believe further to Humbert's OP , he begged the question as to how this "illegal" occupation would be handled by Federal authorities if the occupants were affiliated with Islamic or Afro-American ('black') movements. Would the approach to "enforce the letter of the law" be stronger ?

Ranching has historically been a white boys priory in the West.
The cattleman rancher, sheep herder have historically been given wide ranging grazing rights.
Wasn't that why the Native American population were culled and placed on 'Reservations' (without reservation required) ?

Half of the American West is 'Federal Land'.
Herds don't do very well grazing in the suburbs or cities.
The battle is between predominantly white ranchers who want free-range for their herds and a bureaucratic , huge Federal Gov't that wants to control everything to nurture its Federal bureaucracy paid for and fed by citizen tax dollars.

The Bureau of Land Management oversights quite a bit of territory for ranching, logging and mining operations.
The Federal case of the two men going back to prison and why they have been ordered back by a Federal Appeals judge is story of inept justice.

Originally Posted by PeeCoffee

I believe further to Humbert's OP , he begged the question as to how this "illegal" occupation would be handled by Federal authorities if the occupants were affiliated with Islamic or Afro-American ('black') movements. Would the approach to "enforce the letter of the law" be stronger ?

No, my comment was about the double standard the right demonstrates when it comes to terrorism. Red blooded, patriotic gun loving cowboy rancher good - armed muslim or black bad. If they want to peacefully protest because they want the government to subsidize grazing on Federal land or because they think arson is a justifiable response to their greviances that is their right. But if muslims seized a Federal building in Washington DC the right would be clammoring for the place to be stormed and the perpetrators gunned down.

Originally Posted by Humbert

BURNS, Ore. (AP) — A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of...

Can you imagine the reaction on the right if it was armed Muslims or Black Panthers that took over a government building by force of arms?

Question or comment, Humm ? Semantics again ?

If they were illegal Israeli settlers law breaking in the West bank every candidate would offer backing

Originally Posted by PeeCoffee

Question or comment, Humm ? Semantics again ?

Rhetorical question: A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer