The stand-off in Oregon between the Federal government and Ammon Bundy and his fellow ranchers does not seem to be winding down. Bundy and his loosely connected organization came to Burns, Oregon about two weeks ago in support of Steven and Dwight Hammond, local ranchers who were accused of arson some years ago. The charges were filed because the Hammonds cleared some of their ranch by burning the underbrush and overgrowth, but the fire spread to surrounding Federal land. The Hammonds were able to extinguish the blaze without help, and in fact, both the Hammonds ranch and the Federal land are said to be more productive and healthier from the clearing, but the government seems intent on making a show of who is in charge.
The charge of arson, which in and of itself seems like a huge miscarriage of justice, in that it carries a mandatory sentence of 5 years in prison. A judge who tried the case thought so too and said that it would be improper and unfair to send them to prison for 5 years each, so he sentenced the Hammonds to less than a year in jail, which they completed some time ago. However, a judge or government agency seeking to show ranchers everywhere just who is in charge has demanded that the Hammonds serve the full five years, and the father and son left for prison last week.
Ammon Bundy claims new documents expose government abuse, page 2:
Bundy ain’t no Oregon rancher. Shows how much research went into this post.
Armon just wand to start at the top of his pyramid scam. .
If you want real time info of the facts in Burns Oregon check out Pete Santilli he has been bringing this to light past the media blackout
Our stolen land is being sold to other countries
Why don’t these idiots go back to work. He claims to hate the Feds, but he has borrowed money from them.
Bruce Goodman the Louisiana purchase WAS federal land, until it was parcelled out into territories which became states. Upon statehood, the land was placed into the hands of the state to manage, sell, lease, tax, or anything else they planned. The conflict is that the federal government claims jurisdiction over land that is within the confines of individual states, and because there is no claim by another public or private entity claiming that land they get away with it. The truth of the matter is that the state is not only responsible for that land, it is obligated to manage that land in a way that benefits the inhabitants of THAT STATE. The federal government and it’s agencies, under constitutional and therefore FEDERAL law, have no claim, responsibility, obligation, or any other ties to land that they do not lease from the states. That is factual information. Because of the blatant disregard for the constitution that has been a part of our government’s policies, and even it’s structure, for a very long time, people assume that’s the way it is and will always be. They’re wrong.
Tom Connolly no. They oppose federal management. Private takeover implies that the land is sold or in some way transferred to private entities. They just want the land managed by representatives of the state, as opposed to the unconstitutional “ownership ” practices the feds have in place.
What power does to people
http://listen.radionomy.com/talk69
Sure hope so. Our federal government is way out of line with ALL of it’s “abc” agencies.