Oregon militia standoff: holdouts expected to stand down soon – live

a reply to: DelMarvel

It's not a true "militia group" unless at least one federal informant is leading the charge.

a reply to: Majic

Correct me if I'm wrong, here. Just by calling themselves a militia group they would be breaking the law, unless they were sanctioned by the governor or other authorizing authority, depending on the area they were in. Isn't that correct? I'm guessing that this would be why the PPN was very clear in their statements to say that 'we are not a militia, we are not the militia' when they rolled up there. They could be a club or whatever and that would not be breaking the law?

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: DelMarvel

It's not a true "militia group" unless at least one federal informant is leading the charge.

I haven't thoroughly researched it yet but it does seem very possible there was at least one informant involved in what happened in Oregon.

On the other hand, as far as looking ridiculous it seems all of them went along with allowing an unemployed, mentally unbalanced stoner who apparently lived in his parents' basement reading conspiracy theories to be a major spokesperson for the occupation. I doubt the government was involved in staging that. Unless he was also an informant. I haven't seen anything indicating that.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: the owlbear

Yeah I can't imagine the building is all that important. I like the idea of just abandoning it and letting him live out the rest of his life there. He'll leave eventually.

Depending on who and what you are, the building and its contents are very important. And the refuge is on land that was devastated by overgrazing and mismanagement. It's now restored to close to its original condition (or was before these people decided to make it their own off-road running place.)

This was one of the first places created to protect birds that had been overhunted for their plumes (starting the early Audubon society) : en.wikipedia.org...

The building housed their records along with local artifacts. Audubon centers hire scientists to do research there.

Now... fish and birds are sort of the "canary in the coal mine" (along with bees) for the environment and monitoring what's happening is important for us. Birds are easy to spot so they make a convenient marker for diversity and health of any area. And fish will die if the water quality is bad. Humans could drink that stuff, of course, but fish can't survive.

They're on an important migration pathway and the official numbers recorded there at the refuge are used by scientists all over who are monitoring the environment.

And these people took over and disrupted the annual bird count. The gods know what was done with the fish research data and the information on monitoring the marshes. Marshes are an important part in the cycle of earth, since they clean the water and are a major hatchery for both fish and birds (as well as a lot of other mammals.)

You don't get much biodiversity when cattle come wandering in. Ground dwelling birds can't nest in safety, vegetation gets stomped flat, they can cause soil erosion, illnesses can spread from cattle to local mammals and vice-versa, and the poop (lots of it) all runs off into the local waterways... because cattle (high numbers) have a much more profound impact on the local waterways than deer and everything else does. And then there's the issue of when cattle graze an area you get a lot of unwanted invasive plants (Johnson grass and other problems) entering the whole ecosystem and spreading to people's lawns and gardens and more.

There was a plan in place that addressed everyone's needs that included some grazing and rotating off the land to protect it.
en.wikipedia.org...



The militia's idea of a "community center" was a community that wanted to exclude birders, environmentalists, scientists, researchers, recreational hikers and campers --while turning it loose for unmanaged cattle grazing, off-road vehicles, and hunting and fishing and so forth.

Audubon centers often house educational animals (like birds that are so badly injured they can't be released into the wild) and preserve things like bird study skins (which is what the birds were doing in the freezer... waiting till the biologist had a chance to skin and preserve them. It's an icky job. I've done it, and it's icky.)

It's a huge loss for Dr. Beck (the militias sneered at her as the Fish Lady, unaware that she's the daughter of a rancher and wife of a rancher) I'm sure she's headed out there right now to try and get to her computer and files (I bet they're gone) and back to assess the damage that's been done to the research.

I feel for her. If I was anywhere close, I'd head in and help her.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Majic

Correct me if I'm wrong, here. Just by calling themselves a militia group they would be breaking the law, unless they were sanctioned by the governor or other authorizing authority, depending on the area they were in.

Nope - as you can see from Wikipedia's list of militia groups.

Isn't that correct? I'm guessing that this would be why the PPN was very clear in their statements to say that 'we are not a militia, we are not the militia' when they rolled up there. They could be a club or whatever and that would not be breaking the law?

Who knows what's going on in their minds.

A Well-Regulated Militia

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Constitution for the United States of America empowers Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It also empowers the President to be Commander in Chief of the state militias when they are called into service of the federal government.

Militias are regulated in the United States and include the National Guard as well as state defense forces.

Private paramilitary groups may also call themselves "militias", but there is no constitutional provision or authority for them to do so.

Back-Handed Patriotism

a reply to: DelMarvel

I can say I'm seeing an undeniable need for mental health treatment, but can't say whether David Fry or any other specific person involved is a federal informant -- though if he was, the "crazy" would be great cover for him to be treated and released instead of serving prison time. Thus I can only speculate, as so often we must.

It's extremely unlikely, however, that such a large crowd of "anti-government protesters" could congregate so loosely and publicly without including at least one informant in their midst, more likely several, and potentially sworn law enforcement agents acting undercover as well.

This is especially the case considering how active and vocal these people have been on social media websites, which are very closely monitored by the U.S. government and have been since their inception.

The Burns protesters and Malheur occupiers made repeated public calls to arms. Such open invitations to include total strangers in their ranks not only encouraged anyone of like mind to "come prepared" and join the party, but virtually guaranteed law enforcement infiltration.

How that could possibly come as a surprise to anyone defies rational explanation. But then, so does the idea that the armed occupation of a national wildlife refuge could possibly end well, so that's the mentality in play here.

Social media is the greatest domestic surveillance resource ever made available to governments, and has clearly aided law enforcement in anticipating and responding to this unfortunate series of incidents.

Whether acting as paid informants or unwitting stooges, the Malheur occupiers have served their government well.

I agree. They painted us all in bozo face.

a reply to: Majic

Whether acting as paid informants or unwitting stooges, the Malheur occupiers have served their government well.

Bingo.

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: DelMarvel
Social media is the greatest domestic surveillance resource ever made available to governments, and has clearly aided law enforcement in anticipating and responding to this unfortunate series of incidents.

Just think of all the information law enforcement gathered from weeks of monitoring communication going in and out of Malheur.

originally posted by: Majic
A Well-Regulated Militia

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Constitution for the United States of America empowers Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It also empowers the President to be Commander in Chief of the state militias when they are called into service of the federal government.

Militias are regulated in the United States and include the National Guard as well as state defense forces.

Private paramilitary groups may also call themselves "militias", but there is no constitutional provision or authority for them to do so.

That's what I was getting at, sounds like anyone calling themselves a militia would be circumventing congressional authority, unless specifically authorized by congress to do so. This would explain why the PPN specifically stated that they were not a militia or the militia. I can't help but see the second amendment as empowering the populace in general as a militia, and I think people will organize when they feel so inclined or compelled. Sounds like calling yourself a militia though(or taking specific actions that would define you as a de facto militia, whatever those might be) might get you in some trouble even without occupying the odd wildlife refuge or other federal building.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Majic

Correct me if I'm wrong, here. Just by calling themselves a militia group they would be breaking the law, unless they were sanctioned by the governor or other authorizing authority, depending on the area they were in.

Nope - as you can see from Wikipedia's list of militia groups.

Isn't that correct? I'm guessing that this would be why the PPN was very clear in their statements to say that 'we are not a militia, we are not the militia' when they rolled up there. They could be a club or whatever and that would not be breaking the law?

Who knows what's going on in their minds.

Ah. I had not seen your reply when I wrote my last post. I dunno though...that entry is pretty vague on the legalities of belonging to or being a militia group. Sounds like they're not gonna just take you away for being a member or starting one, but I'd guess you're bound to attract some "special attention." A little closer scrutiny than the average joe would receive, anyhow.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Majic
a reply to: DelMarvel

It's not a true "militia group" unless at least one federal informant is leading the charge.

I haven't thoroughly researched it yet but it does seem very possible there was at least one informant involved in what happened in Oregon.

On the other hand, as far as looking ridiculous it seems all of them went along with allowing an unemployed, mentally unbalanced stoner who apparently lived in his parents' basement reading conspiracy theories to be a major spokesperson for the occupation. I doubt the government was involved in staging that. Unless he was also an informant. I haven't seen anything indicating that.

So the others in the group respected his right to free speech, to post his words and thoughts? Even when it didn't line up precisely with what the leadership was saying... Is that what you are charging here?

a reply to: Byrd

a reply to: Majic

a reply to: diggindirt

A couple ideas I was hoping you guys would kick around with me.
My post from another thread here:
I have been a fairly ardent supporter of Mr. Finicum, posthumously, as I didn't care for the way the man's reputation was trashed. I sympathize with the Bundys' cause of objecting to the unjust, overly harsh punishment given to the Hammonds. I am also upset by the feds' heavy handed tactics in dealing with men and women who were, essentially, peaceful protesters. I am also against the corruption and dirty tactics that have been used by the BLM for decades.

That being said, I think you're absolutely right about the hidden agenda you referenced in your earlier post, that has been mentioned in the thread you referenced(talking here about the potential pitfalls of states taking over the land management). A few articles in the BREAKING: Armed militia occupies forest reserve HQ in Oregon, call ‘US patriots’ to arms thread broached the topic.

That being said, I still think the federal government makes a crappy steward, and the constitutionalists are right in that there is nothing in the letter of the constitiution that authorizes the federal government to hold vast tracts of land that reside within the states. Anyhow, though turning the land over to the states alone doesn't solve the problem that that land will then most likely wind up in the hands of wealthy individuals or big businesses, the same will happen if it's left under federal control. They'll squeeze the little guys out, but megacorps will still be able to buy access. Neither solution alone serves the interests of the people. Something else needs to happen here.

I think if the land is reopened for settlement, that that should be protected for use by individuals, and prohibited from exploitation by big business. If not reopened for settlement, and we're only talking about allowing the land to be used for ranching, recreation, mining, and logging, well then I still think this is an issue where individuals should be empowered, and big business interests should be restrained.

If the MNWR were never occupied and we never heard about all of this BLM corruption, big business would win. If the land is returned to the states as is constitutionally required, with no restrictions on how the state may use it, big business will still win. I would like to see a sensible solution brought forward where the people may benefit from this, and not just large companies. Some mining operations require a large effort, I get it; so do some logging operations. Neither the solution nor preserving the status quo really benefits the people in any way I can see, however.
(end of original post)

What do you guys think about this? Byrd, I get the sense of you that you may have already had a look at this issue due to your personal experience. Majic, diggindirt, I thought I should also include you in my question because I think this is one of the big issues underpinning this case. I'm really also asking the membership at large though. I may do a thread on it. Anyhow, what's the play, here? How is public opinion being played here, if at all? What's the best solution? If we do nothing, BLM corruption continues unabated, individual ranchers and miners continue to get squeezed, etc. Turning the land over to the states doesn't solve it either. I'm more asking about curbing big business interests than the constitutional land use issue. I would imagine you may disagree with me on that, which is fine. Tabling that then, any thoughts?

You may be miffed to learn that tomorrow, President Obama is announcing another 1.8 million acres of federal lands are being designated as National Monuments.

On Friday, Obama will designate more than 1.8 million acres of California desert for protection with the creation of three national monuments: Castle Mountains, Mojave Trails and Sand to Snow. The new monuments will connect three existing sites — Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks and the Mojave National Preserve — to create the second-largest desert preserve in the world.

This was already federally managed land. It will now just enjoy protection under the Antiquities Act of 1906.

Cliven Bundy will be sad to learn that the Gold Butte area in Nevada may be the next parcel added for conservation protection.

WaPo article

a reply to: Olivine

Cliven Bundy will be sad to learn that the Gold Butte area in Nevada may be the next parcel added for conservation protection.

Ole Cliven might need be selling that ranch to pay his lawyer fees.

K~

a reply to: Olivine

I suppose it's unfortunate that although individual miners and small mining companies will be squeezed out, large scale mining operations by large companies that will radically transform the areas in which they are conducted will likely not be prevented. There's that kind of a double standard that goes on with federal lands.

What do you want to bet that they don't let Owen's Lake refill, either? God forbid the Los Angelans should have to find another source of water than shipping it down from Owen's Valley. They have desertified that fertile region over the last century. Of course, that would have been another case of angry farmers being unruly. They fought to keep that canal from being built, but eventually got slapped down. All the inland rainfall that allowing that lake to refill would produce, well we can't have that. LA needs a drink!

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: Olivine

Cliven Bundy will be sad to learn that the Gold Butte area in Nevada may be the next parcel added for conservation protection.

Ole Cliven might need be selling that ranch to pay his lawyer fees.

K~

Nah, they'll probably just seize it. Stake out another few square miles for the large mining operations that are slated for the area, now that the little guys have been squeezed out.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Majic

Correct me if I'm wrong, here. Just by calling themselves a militia group they would be breaking the law, unless they were sanctioned by the governor or other authorizing authority, depending on the area they were in. Isn't that correct? I'm guessing that this would be why the PPN was very clear in their statements to say that 'we are not a militia, we are not the militia' when they rolled up there. They could be a club or whatever and that would not be breaking the law?

It's not against the law to start your own militia, it's no different than starting a motor cycle club.... both would have to obey all state and government laws, you wouldn't get legal protection as would a state militia..... unless under despotic rule, then you can go all bat crazy like in Oregon, though you might want to be more organized....

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
The "militia" argument is a strawman, meant to distract and divert attention.
The government officials and press were the ones calling these protesters, "Militia." They didn't call themselves a militia. They called themselves Citizens for Constitutional Freedom---at their very first press conference. You can see it here:www.youtube.com...
At about the 1:00 mark they are asked what they call themselves.
At about the 1:30 mark they they clearly state their purpose.
At about the 3:45 mark they list the violations of the federal government in encroaching on both state and county control of land and resources.
At about the 5:20 mark they lay out the methods they have already tried in this dispute, the means that have already been employed to petition the state and county governments.
At the 7:45 mark they give the names of each group that has signed the legal documents presented to the various governmental agencies in accordance with law. Not one of those groups has militia in its name.

At the 14:50 mark, they request the media to look into the Hammonds' case and search for the facts.
One guy that was there that day in the press asking questions apparently complied with Ammon's request and posted the results of his research here: www.youtube.com...
His research of the Hammonds' case begins at about the 11:30 mark and is extensive.

At no time did the leaders of this protest refer to themselves as a militia. Only those who are defending the actions of the government have called them a militia or an "armed militia." Part of taking back the narrative is to keep the conversion on the topic---the abuse of citizens by government agents.