A Rational Case in Defense of Ammon Bundy and the Oregon Occupation: Sheriff David Clarke

FreeCapitalist

Amidst all the recent controversy regarding the protest in Oregon, FreeCapitalist.com readers may have missed an exceptional American leader speak out in support of the Hammonds and the Oregon occupation earlier last month.
“There is no working things out with this federal government…I’m through waiting for the next election… I don’t want it to come to armed conflict against the federal government…and that that county Sheriff didn’t stick up for the Hammonds in this situation, against this overbearing, overreaching federal government…its a travesty. Somebody had to do something!” – Sheriff David Clarke
On January 9, 2016, well-known and broadly-respected Sheriff David Clarke took his entire radio broadcast (40 min) to examine the background and motivation behind the protest and occupation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, led by Ammon Bundy and LaVoy Finicum. Asking the American people “What are you willing to do” about growing federal tyranny, Sheriff Clark provides a rational case in defense of the occupation.

This article was published February 3rd and includes a 40 minute video in the link. "The People's Sheriff" David Clarke give his SANE case for the Bundy's take-over of the Malheur Refuge in Oregon. He explains ALL of the CORRECT history of the area from 1800's onward. The original cattlemen created a paradise by their blood sweet and tears and slowly the Federal Government has been pressuring them to leave...Fish and Wildlife, BLM, Forest Service all combined efforts.

Well worth a listen and read.
The "People's Sheriff" indeed!

You know the feds are not just bold and cocky for no reason they are running space ships and deep space colonies they could give a # less about peasants here on earth making trouble to the point of willingness to exterminate the population in the event of a full on revolution or martial law scenario.

a reply to: Granite

Sounds like these guys use the [police] force.
Although police means city but they're definitely using some force.

Having local law enforcement on your side is how all Fergusons should be handled by civilians. Costly though.

Of course, other "agents" may get away with murder temporarily.

There is no rational defense of a armed takeover of a federal building while crying kill or be killed.

The original cattlemen created a paradise by their blood sweet and tears

What a load of BS. The Calvary took care of a majority of native Americans and these hard working cattlemen got wealthy by letting their cattle feed on public land. There were some cattlemen that held vast tracts of land but most were like that deadbeat Bundy and let their cattle feed for free.

a reply to: buster2010

Are you for or against Fed's using these dirty tactics to acquire land? The same land they've already been shown to then make corrupt deals with to line their pockets...

According to the facts in this video, the Hammond have a slam dunk case against the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has "lied repeatedly" against the Hammond's and has used Terrorist laws to put them in prison.

One of the deals made to the Hammond's is if they sale their Ranch, they "MUST" sell it to the BLM, no one else, and that is illegal.

The Hammond's also obtained water rights from the State of Oregon, so their cattle could have water. So BLM built a fence around the water and blocked the Hammond's cattle from getting water, that the Hammond's have the "legal rights" too.

The is a blaten over reach of Federal Government powers, of greed and no accountability. This has to stop right now.

These Rancher are not lazy, Deadbeat, welfare, crazy, misinformed, tin foil hat, gun crazy, government haters, as some of you misinformed ignorant poster want to believe.

There are court records that have now been brought to light that the Federal Government has been in the wrong repeatedly and the BLM have broken many laws and has cased harm, death, and destruction on private property, that is not even theirs.

This is not over by a long shot. We will now start seeing Lawsuits against the Federal Government and the BLM for their wrong doings.

originally posted by: buster2010
There is no rational defense of a armed takeover of a federal building while crying kill or be killed.

The original cattlemen created a paradise by their blood sweet and tears

What a load of BS. The Calvary took care of a majority of native Americans and these hard working cattlemen got wealthy by letting their cattle feed on public land. There were some cattlemen that held vast tracts of land but most were like that deadbeat Bundy and let their cattle feed for free.

...and the battle over beef rights as a commodity owned solely by fed---our neighbors that used to help feed us will soon be starving right beside us...
he who dies with the most toys wins is a lifestyle worthy of destruction.

before your praise falls on deaf ears...there once roamed all across the land numbers of herds of bison...no longer a food source-why?

a reply to: Informer1958

One of the deals made to the Hammond's is if they sale their Ranch, they "MUST" sell it to the BLM, no one else, and that is illegal.

False, completely false. It is not illegal. The right of first refusal is a common contractual feature.

Nor does it mean that a sale must be made to any particular party. It means that any offer to sell must first be made to a certain party. "First refusal." I'm selling my acre for $1,000,000. If I have a first refusal contract, it means that I have to sell it to that person if they are willing to pay that price. If they don't want it at that price, I can sell it to anyone who does.

However as far as the Hammonds go, that agreement was part of the civil case against them. The settlement was a very good deal for the Hammonds, it reduced their fine by more than $600,000 dollars.

The Hammonds in late 2014 agreed to pay the federal government $400,000 to settle a lawsuit seeking to force them to pay more than a $1 million in costs for fighting fires they set. The Hammonds paid $200,000 right away and paid the rest Thursday.

The settlement also required the Hammonds to give the land bureau first chance at buying a particular ranch parcel adjacent to public land if they intended to sell

www.oregonlive.com...

They were able to make the required payment without selling the one particular parcel of land which was specified in the settlement. The case was settled. The government has no further right of first refusal should the Hammonds wish to sell any land.

The Hammond's also obtained water rights from the State of Oregon, so their cattle could have water.

Just any water in Oregon? Or water from specified sources?

a reply to: Phage

False, completely false. It is not illegal. The right of first refusal is a common contractual feature.

False.

You have no idea to what you are talking about, and you are ignorant to the real facts here.

a reply to: Informer1958

False.

First refusal agreements are illegal?
en.wikipedia.org...

You have no idea to what you are talking about, and you are ignorant to the real facts here.

Actually, I seem to know more about the facts than you do.

a reply to: buster2010

hard working cattlemen got wealthy by letting their cattle feed on public land.

What's wrong about that, Buster?

oh right
location
location
& c

edit to add: sure, the inhabitants gunned down by the then-immigrants considered both land and cattle to be public, so privatizing one without the other is a lil bit #ed up (not as #ed up as murder but still a little bit), what I mean is why the name calling? Are you in hell or something?

originally posted by: Informer1958
One of the deals made to the Hammond's is if they sale their Ranch, they "MUST" sell it to the BLM, no one else, and that is illegal.

Care to show exactly where they MUST sell it to the BLM?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: buster2010

Are you for or against Fed's using these dirty tactics to acquire land? The same land they've already been shown to then make corrupt deals with to line their pockets...

I support them more than I support corrupt millionaire cattlemen that use public land for free.

a reply to: wisvol

sure, the inhabitants gunned down by the then-immigrants considered both land and cattle to be public, so privatizing one without the other is a lil bit #ed up (not as #ed up as murder but still a little bit), what I mean is why the name calling?

The natives didn't use the land for profit and didn't consider the land to be public those were white mans terms.

a reply to: loveguy

there once roamed all across the land numbers of herds of bison...no longer a food source-why?

Seeing how you know very little about the old west I'll tell you why there are no longer any great herds of bison roaming the land. The government paid for them to be wiped out as part of a program to settle the west. Starving an enemy into submission has been a favorite tactic of the military for centuries.

a reply to: buster2010

However the whole point the sheriff was making was that the federal government isn't supposed to be owning all that land...in fact it seems to be in direct contradiction with the Constitution. So in light of that how can you support the Fed's over the citizens. Just because they make laws doesn't mean they are just nor does it mean you have to abide by them. If they make laws in contradiction to the Constitution it is your duty as a citizen to oppose those laws. Now if you're the type to blindly follow what you're told by the federal government just because they say so then there is no point in conversing about it anymore.

Edit: also from what I've seen of these cattlemen they sure don't appear to be millionaires...if they were I'm sure they wouldn't have issues with the government taking their land...

a reply to: RickyD

However the whole point the sheriff was making was that the federal government isn't supposed to be owning all that land...in fact it seems to be in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

In that case, the sheriff is mistaken.

If they make laws in contradiction to the Constitution it is your duty as a citizen to oppose those laws.

No. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of the laws.

a reply to: Phage

Actually they are the first recourse but as a citizen of this country you are the last line of defense...and it wouldn't be the first time in my life I've seen a law that was unconstitutional upheld. The government would love to keep you scared of acting in that capacity though...

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: buster2010

However the whole point the sheriff was making was that the federal government isn't supposed to be owning all that land

So what exactly is his Supreme court case stating that, or other precedent that states that?

...in fact it seems to be in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

It does? Care to show us exactly where in the constitution?

a reply to: buster2010

The natives didn't use the land for profit and didn't consider the land to be public those were white mans terms.

See you're wrong about this because by speaking in a certain language you agree to mentally translating concepts so the land was indeed very much public before anglophone mass murders.