Think progress claiming Hammond's were child abusers they have a police report attached which does seem to back up their statements. However, I can not find any court records or convictions. So I don't know at this point. If anyone has any information on this, please update the thread.
Child Abuse
D.H. also testified that, after the first fire, “Dwight told me to keep my mouth shut, that nobody needed to know about the fire, and they didn’t need to know anything about it.” According to D.H., Steven, who was sitting next to Dwight at the time, added that his nephew should “keep [his] mouth shut.” D.H. said that he complied with these instructions because he was “afraid of Steven and Susie [D.H’s grandmother, Dwight’s wife].”
D.H. appears to have had good reason to fear his family. In 2004, D.H. told a sheriff’s deputy about several times that he says he was abused. In one incident, Steven allegedly punched D.H. hard enough to knock him to the ground and “took [D.H.’s] face and rubbed it into the gravel” during an argument over how D.H. was performing his chores. In another incident, after D.H. was cited for being a minor in possession of alcohol, Steven allegedly punished D.H. by driving him ten miles from the family ranch and then making him walk home. In a third incident, after D.H. was cited as a minor in possession of tobacco, Steven allegedly “made him eat two (2) cans of Skoal Smokeless Tobacco and then again walk from Diamond, Oregon to the Hammond Ranch.”
A fourth incident is particularly striking, however. D.H., who reportedly has been diagnosed with depression, used a paper clip to carve the letter “J” into one side of his chest and the letter “S” onto the other side. In response, Steven allegedly “told him that he was not going to let [D.H.] deface the family by carving on himself.” D.H. said that Steven then used sandpaper to remove the carved letters from D.H.’s chest — sanding each side for at least five minutes. Steven also allegedly told D.H. that “he would filet the initials off” his chest if the sandpaper did not work.
When law enforcement officers confronted the Hammond family with these allegations, Dwight admitted that he “had [D.H.] eat a full can of chewing tobacco” in what he says was an effort to “show [D.H.] that chewing tobacco was harmful to his body.” The Hammonds also admitted that the sanding incident occurred, although they would not disclose “who actually did the sanding.” Dwight, claims that the sanding occurred after he called a family meeting to discuss D.H.’s self-harm and that “when [D.H.] was not able to come up with a punishment, that it was decided by the family that the initials would be sanded off.” He added that “it was decided mutually and agreed upon by everyone including” D.H.
The sanding incident is corroborated by pictures of D.H.’s injures that were attached to the police report and included in record against Dwight and Steven Hammond at their trial for arson. http://thinkprogress.org/ju...on-militia-standoff/
Found the answer. God, one day the media will answer for its intentional misleading...
o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness who was not mentally capable to be credible. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson. http://theconservativetreeh...-family-persecution/
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-04-2016).]
Don't know enough details to say anything about the fire but I though you couldn't be charged with a crime twice? Or did they just sentence them again? Even if the fire was arson, did they not serve their time?
It's no secret the federal government is corrupt, at what point are you willing to take a stand?
I do believe in peaceful protests and I do believe it would be more effective in this case. You can argue it has been peaceful so far, without a doubt they should be able to protest with their guns but they are setting themselves up for another Waco. The Branch Dividians not only died but their cause was lost to history.(They where some messed up people but the ATF had no right to go after them) The only thing the inspired was another lunatic(OKC bombing)
Don't know enough details to say anything about the fire but I though you couldn't be charged with a crime twice? Or did they just sentence them again? Even if the fire was arson, did they not serve their time?
It's no secret the federal government is corrupt, at what point are you willing to take a stand?
I do believe in peaceful protests and I do believe it would be more effective in this case. You can argue it has been peaceful so far, without a doubt they should be able to protest with their guns but they are setting themselves up for another Waco. The Branch Dividians not only died but their cause was lost to history.(They where some messed up people but the ATF had no right to go after them) The only thing the inspired was another lunatic(OKC bombing)
They served the time, and were sentenced again, because the first judge gave them last than the min sentence. The problems with this are. 1. They were prosecuted using the anti-terror and death penalty act. This was intended for terrorist intentionally setting fire to government property. The law requires it to be malicious. The law did not apply. 2. Long history of BLM making up and twisting charges against the ranchers.
They served the time, and were sentenced again, because the first judge gave them last than the min sentence. The problems with this are. 1. They were prosecuted using the anti-terror and death penalty act. This was intended for terrorist intentionally setting fire to government property. The law requires it to be malicious. The law did not apply. 2. Long history of BLM making up and twisting charges against the ranchers.
The BLM has been tormenting those ranchers for decades.
I don't agree with the methods of the rancher's "militia" but with the message if that'll ever get out in spite of all the hyperboyle.
Yeah, it looks badly, like they are 'playing the system' which of course has gone on since the very first 'system' was ever created, but that's ok--it all depends "who" it is that is 'playing the system", not the fact that they are playing it.
And it's not lost, that it's always been perfectly ok to complain about the slowness of the govt mule while waiting for the guvment check to arrive in the mail too.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-05-2016).]
Bundys and this are separate deals. I think the government should MONITOR the lands so its not destroyed or whatever damage can be done and keep people from 'homesteading' in it. Otherwise its public lands for everyone to use. Someone gave the ones running the BLM some power and theyre abusing it with a power trip like the Nazis. More people should stand up to illegal control. Im on the militias side on this one. There are laws against burning, like here you CANNOT burn anything without a permit to do it because of the fire hazzard. They should have gotten a fine for that and been done with it, like Calif does when you water lawns during a drought. I dont think anyones ever gone to prison for filling their pool or watering their garden. I think RVer can park on BLM lands but theyre restricted to only staying a week or two. Why ? They should be able to stay there for months if they want. BLM like most other government run orgs, just likes having control and able to make up their own rules. Im guessing this bunch is a little more prepared after seeing things fall apart in similar set ins. They might just be prepared to fight a war there.
not according to harry reid. Anyone that protests BLM (according to "Horrible" Harry) is a domestic terrorist. (That IS what he called the ranchers that showed up during the BLM/Bundy debacle last year)
I have to wonder, what he and the other leftists would have called the participants of the Boston Tea Party in Dec 1773.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-05-2016).]
Yes--by their govt (The Crown) and it's spokesmen (magistrates and colonial governors) , as well as by that govt's civilian supporters in the Colonies. (usually referred to as Tories). That, was 240+ years ago, and by the time the War for Independence was well underway, those "scallywag traitors" were seen as heroes--well, except by the Crown and it's yes men. They still thought they were just common criminals and traitors--and some probably still do today.
...as well as by that govt's civilian supporters in the Colonies.
And my point. Some "regular" people probibly thought they were nothing more then "greedy troublemakers" (the first Union?). Maybe even as criminals.....future "Robber/Barons"?
P.S. I am aware many believe it was strictly a war about Religious Freedom.
Originally posted by Boondawg: P.S. I am aware many believe it was strictly a war about Religious Freedom.
Don, it was a war about a tyrannical government. Religious "freedoms / dictates" were just a part of it. The Boston Tea Party was a taxation thing, without elected representation.
not according to harry reid. Anyone that protests BLM (according to "Horrible" Harry) is a domestic terrorist. (That IS what he called the ranchers that showed up during the BLM/Bundy debacle last year)
I have to wonder, what he and the other leftists would have called the participants of the Boston Tea Party in Dec 1773.
Well, "militia" is what they call themselves. You know, like Muslims call Islam the Religion of Peace.
Liberals take the low road in Oregon standoff By Michael A. Cohen January 05, 2016
Over the weekend, a bunch of guys with legally procured guns took over a federal bird sanctuary in the Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge in rural Oregon. They did so as a protest on behalf of two local ranchers, the Hammonds, who are being sent back to prison. The two men had previously been found guilty of committing arson, but even though they were required to serve a mandatory five years in prison, a judge gave them a lesser sentence. Now, after an unusual appeal by the prosecutor, they are being returned to a federal penitentiary to complete their full sentence.
Now, granted the seizure of federal property is nothing to sneeze at; certainly not when the men doing it are armed with high-caliber weapons and have spoken of responding to police efforts to dislodge them with force. Moreover, those involved include the son of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher locked in a long-standing dispute with federal officials over the use of federal land for cattle grazing. These fights between right-wing Westerners and the federal government are not new, though Bundy took it to a new level last year by bringing in armed civilians to “protect” his ranch — and forcing the federal government to back down. But this is not a rebellion or an insurrection and, in some respects, those involved have a legitimate beef — sending someone who has already served time back to prison is not a normal circumstance and one that, in certain situations, would enrage not just conservatives but liberals.
Yet, it’s been liberals, in the days since the militia seizure, who have been loudly calling for blood — and pointing out alleged double standards. On Twitter, regular comparisons have been made between the response in Oregon and the shootings by police of black youths like 17-year-old Laquan McDonald and 12-year-old Tamir Rice. One widely retweeted tweet even went so far as to posit a “crazy idea” to “treat armed adult white militia like they’re unarmed black children. Just for one day.”
This is, to put it mildly, an over-reaction and a damaging one at that. If one believes that police should not be using deadly force against children (you can count me in that group), then calling for deadly force to be used against gun-toting whites is just a tad hypocritical.
The Washington Post asked why those in Oregon aren’t being branded terrorists. The answer is actually rather simple: Nothing this group has done looks or sounds like terrorism. No violence has occurred; no one has yet been harmed, and these individuals, as bizarre as it may seem, are legally allowed to possess the guns they have for protection. View Story Alex Beam: Standoff has roots in Mormon fanaticism
Most mainstream news accounts of the occupation have ignored or downplayed the group’s religious beliefs.
Evan Horowitz: Why have militia members seized a nature preserve in Oregon? Ranchers who inspired Oregon occupation report to prison
The “explainer” site Vox complained that even though there was a Twitter hashtag #Oregonunderattack, The New York Times shrugged at the story by “only” giving it an above-the-fold sidebar.
The liberal news site Think Progress compared the muted response of federal officials to the seizure in Oregon by armed with whites with the more aggressive 1985 standoff between Philadelphia police and the black nationalist group MOVE — as if Waco and Ruby Ridge, in which dozens of white Americans were killed, had never happened.
It’s worth keeping in mind that in Ruby Ridge, an innocent, unarmed woman was shot and killed by an FBI sniper while holding a 10-month-old baby. In Waco, 76 Branch Davidians, including many children, were killed when the FBI sought to resolve that more than seven-week siege. In addition, four ATF agents were killed as well. Those botched raids are no doubt influencing how to handle this situation.
No law enforcement is going to send their officers into harm’s way to resolve this issue; and no liberal should want them to. Just as self-preservation is all too often what leads police to recklessly fire on black teenagers, the desire not to send officers against armed civilians is no doubt a paramount concern. These individuals are in an isolated locale, there are — as far as we know — no innocent civilians present, and they could just as easily be cut off from food and water and forced to depart. Force is and should be a last resort.
But this whole incident — and the reaction to it — is also a worthwhile reminder that the political polarization in American society is increasingly leading to a frenzied inclination to tribalism by both conservatives and liberals. Just as many on the right view the Black Lives Matter movement in harshly negative, occasionally racist terms, the immediate reaction to the incident in Oregon was harshly negative, stereotypical, and contradictory. These two are not the same; and the Black Lives Matter movement rests on stronger ground than ranchers who don’t want to pay grazing fees or adhere to the rule of law.
But it’s worth keeping in mind that not everything is about what you want it to be about; and not every situation can so easily be analogized to your pet cause. We’d all do a little better in checking our biases, before checking Twitter or Facebook to see which side we should take in the crisis du jour.
I loved some of the comments on Donny's linked to page in his first post I think it was, More namby pamby not in my back yard BS artists. I don't agree with what they are doing, protesting sure occupation of a government building is not the smartest thing to do. We have a right to protest, just like those BLM nuts, how we protest can get you killed, we have a long history of forgetting about something as soon as its over, think Wako, Ruby Ridge, Wounded knee, Those all happened in our history and if you think this is going to be any different you are sadly mistaken the government doesn't care about us, just their own.
Those BLM people just go in shooting their mouths off at first but then a few seconds later they start shooting at anyone who isn't their color.
If George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock were alive today they would be rolling their eyes at our own government and what it has become, the same thing they fought against back over 200 years ago, only to have the government we elected, our own so called elected representatives just keep taking from us, they don't care about us, the people just themselves. Making sure they have that golden retirement fund for themselves and we get the sht end of the stick.
When are we ever going to learn that the Trump's, Clinton's, Obama's don't care about the people, they only care about how much they can screw the rest of the country out of anything unless it gets the so called representatives even more money.
Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 01-06-2016).]
At the bottom of all this of course is the "M" in BLM. Bureau of Land Management.
The Hammonds set one fire, which BLM admitted, was a back fire for the purpose of preventing an off site fire from spreading onto the rancher's leased Federal grazing land. Back when my county was open range and everyone with cattlle leased acreage in the National Forest, the farmers and cattlemen set back fires frequently to keep forest fires from encroaching on their leased parcels. A forest fire comes in that natl forest today, I would set a backfire in a heartbeat to protect my property.
The fire in question, was set (according to the rancher) for the purpose of getting rid of invasive plant species. Again, it was not uncommon for lessors here to burn off portions of the national forest when the trees were green leafed (just the underbrush would burn) to prevent undesirable plants from taking over--plants like greenbriar and chinese tallow, both of which now are a HUGE problem since there are no longer any livestock allowed to graze the govt land here. Both of those, should have been done by BLm. It's their job to manage the land--it's in the name. But.....Not unusual at all for private citizens or state agencies to have to do the job of the federal agencies when the feds just won't do it. Think illegal immigrant prevention among others. BLM is simply doing a piss poor job of managing those lands, then get their panties in a wad when someone else does it for them.
The other question is why was this a terrorist act? A rancher's workplace is his grazing area, just as much as an office is a clerk's workplace. People ask me where I work, I just point and say--"Out there".
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-06-2016).]
I totally agree. Its WHAT theyre doing, NOT what color they are...even though some of what they do is color related.
Blacks are thugs because they only seek to injure people or destroy property, even their own.
Browns (middle eastern) are just usually the color of the people from the countries causing most terrorism.
Whites just do takeovers for the most part, they dont seem intent on wrecking everything and killing everyone in sight . In this militia takeover, I dont see anyone thats hurt, or anything including vehicles that are damaged in any way. They just moved in and refuse to leave.
They just moved in heavily armed and refused to leave. Without the arms it would be a completely legal protest. I think. I might be wrong but it looks like they are just insecure bullys trying to compensate with their scary assault type guns. jmho.
They just moved in heavily armed and refused to leave. Without the arms it would be a completely legal protest. I think. I might be wrong but it looks like they are just insecure bullys trying to compensate with their scary assault type guns. jmho.
Exact same thing could be said for the founding fathers. Events like this shows who the crown sympathizers would have been in the civil war. Imagine the Boston Tea Party today...
The BLM's actions back then would have started the revolutionary war and or a civil war.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 01-06-2016).]
Well, "militia" is what they call themselves. You know, like Muslims call Islam the Religion of Peace.
A fanatic is a fanatic....regardless of what book he reads.
quote
Man behind armed Oregon band says he's on mission from God
Associated Press By TERRENCE PETTY and MICHELLE RINDELS
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The man behind the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge comes from a Mormon family that has been challenging government authority for at least two decades.
Ammon Bundy, like his father in previous confrontations, says he is following directions from God and invokes his family's faith when explaining the anti-government movement he is attempting to lead.
In March 2014, Cliven Bundy was at the center of an armed standoff with federal officials over grazing rights on government land. Federal officials backed away from seizing the Nevada rancher's cattle, but the dispute remains unresolved, and the Bureau of Land Management says the family has not made payments toward a $1.1 million grazing fee and penalty bill.
Now Cliven Bundy's son has put himself in the spotlight, this time in Oregon in a dispute over someone else's ranching operation. His armed group is pressing federal authorities to turn over government land to local control.
Ammon Bundy came to Oregon hoping to rally support behind his cause, but his tactics have been broadly rejected by many locals, by the state's main ranching group and by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which the Bundy family has belonged to for generations.
In a statement issued Monday, Mormon leaders said the Oregon land dispute "is not a church matter," but they condemned the seizure and said they were "deeply troubled" by reports that suggest the armed group is acting "based on Scriptural principles."
The ranchers that Ammon Bundy came to defend rejected his assistance and on Monday voluntarily surrendered to serve a federal prison term on a 2012 conviction on charges of committing arson on federal land.
A leader of the group Oath Keepers_past and present members of the military, first-responders and police officers who pledge to uphold the Constitution— issued a statement saying Ammon Bundy has gone too far. Many Oath Keepers were at the 2014 Bundy ranch standoff in Nevada.
But in Oregon, Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes said, Ammon Bundy had picked the wrong battle.
"We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it," Rhodes said last week on the group's website.
Speaking through their attorney, Dwight Hammond Jr. and son Steven said they preferred to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence.
"And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this," Rhodes said.
Ammon Bundy has said he had never heard of the Hammond case until his father mentioned it to him. The Hammonds were convicted three years ago of setting fires on federal land in 2001 and 2006. One of the blazes was set to cover up deer poaching, according to prosecutors.
The men served no more than a year until an appeals court judge ruled that the terms fell short of minimum sentences requiring them to serve about four more years.
Ammon Bundy said he prayed about the matter and "clearly understood that the Lord was not pleased with what was happening to the Hammonds."
The Hammonds said they lit the fires to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.
"I did exactly what the Lord asked me to do," Bundy said in a YouTube video posted last week in which he appeals to people to join him in Oregon to protest the treatment of the Hammonds.
In the 2014 showdown with federal authorities in Nevada, Cliven Bundy also justified his actions in religious terms, saying that he decided to challenge federal agents after praying for guidance.
Their ideology aligns with a strain of anti-government thinking that was espoused by some church thought leaders during the Cold War. But it is rejected by mainstream Mormons today, according to Matthew Bowman, a professor of American religion at Henderson State University in Arkansas.
Still, whether to submit to church leaders or follow a personal conviction remains "a deep and central tension within Mormon doctrine and culture," Bowman said.
The Bundy family's dispute with federal authorities dates to 1993, when land managers in Nevada cited concern for the federally protected desert tortoise and capped Cliven Bundy's herd at 150 animals on a 250-square-mile allotment of land. Officials later revoked Bundy's grazing rights completely. Federal officials' attempts to round up the cattle from the arid habitat 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas were called off in an effort to avoid bloodshed.
The 2014 standoff — and the current one in Oregon — are continuations of a decades-long fight over public lands in the West. Many people living in rural areas say their efforts to make a living have been hurt by federal policies regulating the use of government lands.
Conservation groups counter that federal agencies are a better choice than states to manage public lands. That's because the agencies can authorize the land for multiple uses, such as mining, grazing or recreation, while many Western states are constitutionally obligated to use lands they manage for the most lucrative purpose — often mining.
"Certainly the folks that live close to these places have a very legitimate voice in this debate. But what is unique about this national land system is that everyone gets to participate," said Jessica Goad, advocacy director for the Denver-based Center for Western Priorities.
Many locals agree with Ammon Bundy that the second Hammond sentence was too harsh, considering the crime. But they disapprove of Bundy's occupation and fear it could lead to violence.
Those concerns were shared by John O'Keeffe, president of the Oregon Cattleman's Association, who said Monday that his group "does not support illegal activity taken against the government."
Ammon Bundy himself has benefited from federal programs. Records show that in 2010 he borrowed $530,000 through the Small Business Administration for his company, Valet Fleet Service LLC. On Tuesday, he justified the loan by saying he is not anti-government but is opposed to federal policies that go against the people's will.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 01-06-2016).]
The plot thickens...the rightful owners of the land come forward?
quote
Burns, Oregon (CNN)—The leaders of the Burns Paiute tribe have a message for the men and women who have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns, Oregon: "Go home. We don't want you here."
The message came from several tribe members whose ancestors fought and died over portions of that land long before the ranchers and farmers had it, long before the federal government even existed.
The tribe is still fighting over land use but now works with the federal government's Bureau of Land Management to save its archaeological sites.
"We have good relations with the refuge. They protect our cultural rights there," said tribal council Chairwoman Charlotte Rodrique.
The Bureau of Land Management is the same agency that has riled up Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy and the armed protesters who joined him from out of state. The men took over the wildlife refuge headquarters, saying they would stay until the land was returned to who they consider its owners, the 100 or so ranchers and farmers who worked the land as far back as 1900.
"We are exercising our constitutional rights. We won't leave until these lands have been turned over to the their rightful owners," Bundy said. "More than 100 ranchers and farmers used to work this land, which was taken illegally by the federal government."
The Paiute tribe decided it was time to speak about what's happening at the refuge. They did so at length and with plenty of emotion.
"They just need to get the hell out of here," tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy told a crowd of reporters and local residents who showed up to listen to what the tribe had to say on the matter.
Later he explained why he felt so angry about the takeover.
Oregon protest leader: 'There is a time to go home'
"To me they are just a bunch of bullies and little criminals coming in here and trying to push us around over here and occupy our aboriginal territories out there where our ancestors are buried," Kennedy said.
He continued to tell the history of his tribe's fight over land. Members of the tribe are descendants of the Wadatika band of northern Paiutes. Their history in the area dates back 9,000 years ago, the tribe says. The ancestors of the Burns Paiutes lived in caves near the shores of lakes in the Northern Great Basin. When the lakes began drying up the tribe had to migrate.
The tribe said it has never ceded its right to the land but received federal recognition in 1868 and signed a treaty with the federal government that requires it to protect the safety of the natives and promised to prosecute any crime or injury perpetrated by any white man upon them.
Fast forward to 1879 after the treaty was signed. The Paiutes say their people were "loaded into wagons and ordered to walk under heavy guard" in knee-deep snow and forced off their land on foot.
"They literally walked our people, children and women off our lands. They had no problem killing us," Kennedy said.
Inside the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters, Kennedy said there are important official papers that document his tribe's history and his ancestors' existence on the land. That headquarters has been taken over by men from out of state.
Armed group's leader in federal building: 'We will be here as long as it takes'
"It gets tiring. It's the same battles that my ancestors had. And now it's just a bunch of different cavalry wearing a bunch of different coats," Kennedy said.
He stood with several members of the tribe, whose numbers in the Burns area have dwindled to about 200. They lead hard lives, many working odd jobs to try to make ends meet. Kennedy said he and many others rely heavily on federal government grants to survive.
"It's tough out here. Not a lot of jobs. If any company wants to relocate we'd welcome it," Kennedy said.
Bundy showed up with several others before Christmas to protest a legal case against local father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond.
A federal judge ordered the two men back to prison after a government appeal of their sentences for arson on federal lands. The government said the two set fires to cover up their poaching of deer.
Many of the townspeople said they are upset about what has happened to the Hammonds, seeing them returned to prison after serving the initial sentence, but there are mixed emotions about Bundy and the other protesters, who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom.
A few ranchers have supported the group, bringing protesters warm soup and supper.
But in a community meeting called by the Harney County sheriff attended by hundreds of residents from the small town, the vast majority raised their hands when asked if they wanted the group to leave and the situation to end peacefully.
"What is going on down at the refuge is unfortunate. What led up to that is unfortunate, too. There are people here that tried to do a peaceful rally and that got highjacked." Harney County Sheriff David Ward told the crowd. "I am here today to ask those folks to go home and let us get back to our lives here in Harney County."
Louis Smith, who has lived in Burns for 56 years, said of the protesters, "They woke everybody up, we appreciate that. I don't agree with all they are doing, but I don't agree with the government's doing either."
After five days occupying the headquarters in the refuge that they broke into, including taking the tractors and using them as barricades at the entrance, the group has stayed put.
The tribal leaders said they agree with how the federal, local and state law enforcement authorities are dealing with the protesters. That has basically been waiting them out and not physically challenging them. The tribe members are quick to point out that they think things would be much different if it were them trying to take back the land the same way.
"We'd be already shot up, blown up or in jail. Just being honest; they are used to killing us," Kennedy said. "They are white men. That is the difference. That is just how I see it."
There is a huge difference between a government and a revolution. The father was speaking of one and the son of the other. The son stated the revolution connected the two ideologies--he did not state that either one was founded on anything at all.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-06-2016).]
Yeah, there are a lot of conveniently ignored pieces to this story. The local news has done a far better job of reporting it than the national or various "specialty" websites.
Native tribes commonly made war with other tribes, many times for conquest. One tribe would go to war with another tribe to take their land and enslave anyone they could capture. This happened all over North America long before Europeans set foot on it. So be careful the can-of-worms you open up here. There's always going to be someone who will have an earlier claim to something like this. It just so happens the Burns Paiute tribe claims they were the last ones to "possess" it before the U.S. government took it from them.
And on that subject, how would you feel if a native tribe came in right now and demanded the properly YOU own be turned back over to them? There is nobody living in this country right now that can claim they were the original owners of the land. If they are a member of a tribe, their ancestors most likely took it from someone else (in a tribal war) somewhere along the line before the U.S. government came along and took it from them. Or perhaps their ancestors were duped into taking some beaver pelts and a couple of horses in trade for the land and now their living descendants are sour about it and want to go back on the original deal.
The person or people who will end up keeping the land are the ones most willing to fight for it.
[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 01-07-2016).]
BLM thinks they own the land. The indians claiming it have no say so there (according to BLM).
They only brought in arms because without them, they knew the police would just drag them out by the hair while beating them with clubs and tazers. Bringing in the weapons offers some security. At least they seem ready to shoot back if any force is shown.
You know, it amazes me the short memory, we Americans have. Crimes of the US Government 1. Native American land theft/genocide. 2. Slavery 3. Bonus Army 4. Bay of Pigs 5. Ruby Ridge 6. Waco 7. There are/are no WMD in Iraq, and we gave them nerve gas to use in the Iran-Contra wars.
Yet, we automatically assume the government innocent, and I am sure I missing quite a bit.
Originally posted by rogergarrison: ...Bringing in the weapons offers some security. At least they seem ready to shoot back if any force is shown.
Maybe so. It put the FBI in a tough spot. Right now they are pacing back and forth trying to figure out how to slaughter the Militia without being the villain. When they figure out how to villainize the Militia is when this whole thing goes south.
[This message has been edited by jmbishop (edited 01-08-2016).]
