Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory

Among the many examples still fresh in the minds of the people of Harney County is the Frenchglen/Miller Homestead Fire, which burned more than 160,000 acres, and the Long Draw Fire (more than 558,000 acres). Both of these fires were started by lightning in July 2012. But, critics charge, the BLM carried out a number backfire operations that 1) spread the fire instead of stopping it; 2) caused massive losses to private property and public lands; 3) killed cattle and left many wandering around badly burned; 5) endangered the lives of firefighters and residents; 6) not only failed to notify ranchers and residents before initiating their arson/backfire operations, but repeatedly gave them false assurances that everything was under control...

Oregon Standoff: BLM’s “Burn ‘Em Out” Legacy — The Untold Backstory

Yes, another thread about land use issues and government corruption as it pertains to the issue. Why? Because it's important! You had better start paying attention if you aren't paying attention already! If you are or have been, I hope you'll find this article by William F. Jasper informative.

Included with the article is a video interview with a local Harney county rancher who offers his perspective. Here, then, is at least one Harney county resident who sympathized with the plight of the Hammonds.

The author also provides more information on the long standing resentment that has existed for some time between the ranchers of America and various federal agencies. There are links provided to a number of other articles on the subject as well.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
Itll get pretty much more confrontational if they keep pushing the Clean water issue too....
Looks like the smaller landholders are being squeezed out.....with laws that are over reaching...
Another Obama legacy....

Any time you have a large fire go through range land the BLM will close it to cattle for 3 to 5 years.
During that time they will replant the area with grasses unsuitable for cattle feed like cheatgrass that is a non native grass that cattle will not gain weight on.
The invasive cheatgrass get spread because the BLM buy there seed from the lowest bidder and does not reject contaminated seed.
The cheatgrass grows faster then the native grasses and spreads more seed and will push out native grasses.

a reply to: ANNED

That's horrible! Good lord, this can of worms gets deeper and stinkier every I time I look in there! What's next? Shape shifting reptilians?!? (Just kidding, I think)

Modifying the environment on a large scale like that...this could have serious unforseen long term consequences. For instance, what about the native wild grass eaters? Who knows what else? I wonder if this has affected the moose population at all. They subsist at least partially on grass, don't they? Elk, deer, and buffalo certainly do.

a reply to: bandersnatch

Asktheanimals wrote some interesting thoughts in that regard in response to a mini rant I wrote in the Free The Hammonds thread...scary stuff, for sure.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Are you presenting this article as an unbiased and objective review of the facts of the matter?

Or are you cool with the fact that it repeats the same misunderstanding of "the Enclave Clause" that the Bundy Gang touts?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Would you please explain what you mean by the enclave clause or post a link on it so that I can post a semi-intelligent response to that question?

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Would you please explain what you mean by the enclave clause or post a link on it so that I can respond to that intellingently?

Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl.17 of the Constitution

From your article:

As we have pointed out in past articles, the Framers of our U.S. Constitution did not intend, nor contemplate, that the federal government would become the gargantuan landlord it now is. According to the Constitution, our law of the land, “The Congress shall have Power ... 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.”

The meaning is clear: The federal government was (and is) allowed to have a 10-mile square (100 square miles) for a seat of government. Property for “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,” etc., for national defense purposes, could be purchased from the states — so long as the state legislatures consented to said purchases.

Ignores the clear fact that everything west of the Mississippi began its American life as a possession or territory of the US Government.

Ignores the fact that the US Government is the sovereign governmental power and that these lands belonged to us by conquest, purchase, and by treaty.

Ignores the fact that Oregon is created by an Act of the US Government.

Ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has answered this question over and over again.

So and so on. More Cleon Skousen nonsense.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact that the constitution itself does not authorize and in fact specifically prohibits the federal government from owning vast tracts of land is more of a side issue to the BLM's dirty tactics in this article, and I would personally rather discuss the BLM's dirty tactics and corruption than the constitution's position on federal land ownership. The article does focus more on the BLM than the 'enclave clause', wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Are you presenting this article as an unbiased and objective review of the facts of the matter?

Or are you cool with the fact that it repeats the same misunderstanding of "the Enclave Clause" that the Bundy Gang touts?

As opposed to the we-interpret-the-meaning-of-every-contract-we-impose side of things?

Impartiality vis a vis the black hole of government is farcical.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Then take the allegations to a court and push for charges instead of trying to rewrite what occurred in Oregon, where the suspects own family members testified against them and where a jury of their peers found them guilty.

a reply to: Xcathdra

What happens when the court is corrupt...as they often are?

What happens when you aren't rich and can't afford the caliber legal team to win? Of course you know a lawyer is nothing more than a bribe these days...you get the lawyer that is the friendliest with the judge and or prosecution/other attorney and you get your way...but it'll cost you. That's the new American way...and I have family in the legal system so I have witnessed this first hand...

a reply to: RickyD

What happens when the militia is corrupt, leaving out facts it if cant be spun in their favor? After all militias only care about their singular mindset, just like lawyers.

We done with the asinine comments now?

Or are you seriously suggesting the police, prosecution, defense and the jury, not to mention the family members who testified against them, were all on the take?

Conspiracies apparently are the new American way when people refuse to apply common sense.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Then take the allegations to a court and push for charges instead of trying to rewrite what occurred in Oregon, where the suspects own family members testified against them and where a jury of their peers found them guilty.

That's what I replied to...which should put my words in better context for you. How does one without means over turn corrupt judges or politicians. How many times has something questionable either been declined to be heard in the supreme Court or the justices are split...I mean if they are human they are corruptable and judging by the type of people in politics which put them on that bench I can only summize they're probably pretty close to the same type of people said politicians are. That would lead me to believe that is fairly common looking at the federal government. Why would we agree that part is totally corrupt but oh those judges are the super hero's. It's just not very likely. What recourse do you, as a person with little means and no where close to the connections as those you're up against, have?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh, you must mean the family member whose testimony was thrown out during the trial. That family member? Nephew or something I think? Were there others? I only remember hearing/reading of the one...who testified against them, that is.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The arson trial and the testimony was not thrown out.

a reply to: RickyD

Using the argument everyone in the legal system is crooked / to expensive doesnt fly as its not true. If they didn't try or quit after their first attempt / first loss it still does not justify those types of actions.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact that the constitution itself does not authorize and in fact specifically prohibits the federal government from owning vast tracts of land is more of a side issue to the BLM's dirty tactics in this article, and I would personally rather discuss the BLM's dirty tactics and corruption than the constitution's position on federal land ownership. The article does focus more on the BLM than the 'enclave clause', wouldn't you agree?

So you're a true believer now too eh? I'm wasting my time in conversation with you then.

The Constitution does not prohibit the United States from owning land. The United States is the sovereign governmental entity under our Constitution, along with the several States, with which it shares sovereignty in specified ways.

To say otherwise is patently absurd.

The "article" which is nothing more than more propaganda, assumes the same errant lies about the Constitution, known history and basic reality that you apparently do.

Enjoy yet another thread about the same issues!

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I'm listening. What you got? Show me the law please where the US Constitution has been modified to provide for this. You are familiar with it, I presume. A little off topic for where I wanted the thread to go, but really well within the topic purview. I'll go there with you, then. Are there supreme court decisions where this issue is discussed/modified? Slap 'em up here, if you've got 'em handy.

You're merely begging the question.

The Constitution has not been modified to enable land ownership and management and there's no need to modify it to do so. All I need to prove my claims is the Constitution itself.

I've already quoted the Constitution's "Enclave Clause" (the misinterpretation of which is what the warped Skousenite philosophy you're parroting devolves from.)

The Enclave Clause ESTABLISHES a specific right of the US Government to own and administer the lands reserved to the future national capital. If you'd like to understand the basis for this, research the issues resulting from the National Capital's placement within Philadelphia PA caused.

It ESTABLISHES specific rights for the US Government to own and administer fully future property contained within the lands of the United States itself, which at the establishment of the United States vis-a-vis the Constitution, created a dual sovereignty between the US Government and the existing State governments, which continues to every new State admitted to the Union under the Constitution. This is why this is called the "ENCLAVE" Clause ... it creates a specific area (an enclave) that is under US Federal Control ONLY ... in Washington DC and other "needful buildings" so designated, the States do not have dual sovereignty, i.e. they are Federal jurisdictions ONLY.

Further, specifically, the lands of Oregon were acquired by THE UNITED STATES via a combination of conquest, settlement and finally a treaty with Great Britain. The lands became the property and possession of the United States, which first established the Oregon Territory and then admitted the State of Oregon by an act of the United States.

Here's the relevant portion of the Constitution regarding the legal status of those lands:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:

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.

This is also, by the way, the Constitutional statement that puts the ABSOLUTE lie to all asinine comments that the US cannot own land, property, have possessions, have territories, etc.

Is there any point in going to the body of Federal law or the decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard?

(I swear to all that's holy and unholy that if you ask for a frickin' video as backup for this because you can't trust the mainstream media that I am done with the discussion forever. )