Oregon terrorist say they will leave community if asked.

[bodecea]

Many of Cliveden Bundy's followers threatened to shoot authorities. Two of them actually became cop-killers. Peaceful protest. And by the way, can I have dibs on the Grand Canyon?

Yet no names or links.....

Their names were Jerad and Amanda Miller. The link: Neighbors: Vegas cop killers said they were at Bundy's ranch

 

[bodecea]

It's a building, not a complex, and it doesn't have power now. It is an empty building in the middle of mismanaged, stolen blm land. The community is fine with them.

Stolen from whom? You have been asked and still have not told us who owned this land before the Feds did. Why can't you answer?

Ranchers owned the land before the feds did. When they wouldn't sell, the feds took their water and flooded their property.

I don't answer you and the other trolls because I have you on ignore. You have never brought anything to any discussion, and you will bring nothing to this one.

Again, more wild ass lies. There is plenty on the history of the Malhuer Game Refuge on the internet.

"(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
"(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.
"(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
"(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
"(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge. The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
"(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
"(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony). Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
"(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
"(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
"(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
"(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.
"(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.
"(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.
"(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
"(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
"(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”. Full Story About What's Going on In Oregon - "Militia" Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution...

AND THIS IS ALL OBAMIE'S FAULT!

And Allie's own link shows that the land was............PURCHASED. The HORROR!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

Cliveden Bundy wanted to graze his cows on federal land without rent or fees. I paid for my land and if I tried to graze my cows on other land I'd be in trouble.

The feds arbitrarily raise the fees when they want to kick ranchers out. When that doesn't work, they illegally fence off water sources, block roads, start fires that kill cattle, divert water, and flood properties.

Allegedly. You'd think that kind of stuff would be as easy to PROVE as it is to state, eh?

 

[dilloduck]

Cliveden Bundy wanted to graze his cows on federal land without rent or fees. I paid for my land and if I tried to graze my cows on other land I'd be in trouble.

The feds arbitrarily raise the fees when they want to kick ranchers out. When that doesn't work, they illegally fence off water sources, block roads, start fires that kill cattle, divert water, and flood properties.

Allegedly. You'd think that kind of stuff would be as easy to PROVE as it is to state, eh?

oh ya---getting the truth outta the feds is a snap.

 

[Dot Com]

Cliveden Bundy wanted to graze his cows on federal land without rent or fees. I paid for my land and if I tried to graze my cows on other land I'd be in trouble.

The feds arbitrarily raise the fees when they want to kick ranchers out. When that doesn't work, they illegally fence off water sources, block roads, start fires that kill cattle, divert water, and flood properties.

Allegedly. You'd think that kind of stuff would be as easy to PROVE as it is to state, eh?

One would think but we're dealing w/ anti- gubmint RWNJ's

 

[TooTall]

We sure as Hell can't allow right wingers protesting the government.

It is okay when left wingers do it though.

It's a little different when they come in threatening to kill or be killed, dontcha think?

That's not exactly an everyday protest.

It would be a lot better if they would burn down and rob businesses and homes like what happens at a lot of other protests don't you agree? But we didn't call them terrorists either did we?

 

[TooTall]

We sure as Hell can't allow right wingers protesting the government.

It is okay when left wingers do it though.

It's a little different when they come in threatening to kill or be killed, dontcha think?

That's not exactly an everyday protest.

How is this different from Baltimore or Ferguson?

I dunno, you tell me.

Nothing is on fire and the drugs are still in the drug stores.

 

[JimH52]

We sure as Hell can't allow right wingers protesting the government.

It is okay when left wingers do it though.

It's a little different when they come in threatening to kill or be killed, dontcha think?

That's not exactly an everyday protest.

It would be a lot better if they would burn down and rob businesses and homes like what happens at a lot of other protests don't you agree? But we didn't call them terrorists either did we?

They were rioters which is bad enough. These are terrorist bullies who think they can take the law in their own hands.

They want to help these people. Let them put up some cash for another lawyer to appeal the ruling or put up some cash to help the family while their men are in jail. I haven't hear a peep about anything other than "defending ourselves against the guvment."

 

[Tilly]

Many of Cliveden Bundy's followers threatened to shoot authorities. Two of them actually became cop-killers. Peaceful protest. And by the way, can I have dibs on the Grand Canyon?

Yet no names or links.....

Look up Jerad Miller at Las Vegas cop shooting. Name and link.

Please provide the link.

 

[Tilly]

Many of Cliveden Bundy's followers threatened to shoot authorities. Two of them actually became cop-killers. Peaceful protest. And by the way, can I have dibs on the Grand Canyon?

Yet no names or links.....

Their names were Jerad and Amanda Miller. The link: Neighbors: Vegas cop killers said they were at Bundy's ranch

'Neighbours said'. Got anything more substantial than 'neighbours said'?

 

[TooTall]

We sure as Hell can't allow right wingers protesting the government.

It is okay when left wingers do it though.

It's a little different when they come in threatening to kill or be killed, dontcha think?

That's not exactly an everyday protest.

It would be a lot better if they would burn down and rob businesses and homes like what happens at a lot of other protests don't you agree? But we didn't call them terrorists either did we?

They were rioters which is bad enough. These are terrorist bullies who think they can take the law in their own hands.

They want to help these people. Let them put up some cash for another lawyer to appeal the ruling or put up some cash to help the family while their men are in jail. I haven't hear a peep about anything other than "defending ourselves against the guvment."

As soon as you call the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore 'terrorists' I might agree with you. But they are going to have to rob a few stores and burn them down before I will call them terrorists.

 

[Tilly]

We sure as Hell can't allow right wingers protesting the government.

It is okay when left wingers do it though.

It's a little different when they come in threatening to kill or be killed, dontcha think?

That's not exactly an everyday protest.

It would be a lot better if they would burn down and rob businesses and homes like what happens at a lot of other protests don't you agree? But we didn't call them terrorists either did we?

They were rioters which is bad enough. These are terrorist bullies who think they can take the law in their own hands.
."

They've occupied a building.

 

[koshergrl]

The bundy guys aren't terrorists. They haven't threatened anybody, they are out in the community and community members are going into the gift shop where they are. One of the local pastors/business owners posted a long facebook post about his visit with them.

 

[bodecea]

Cliveden Bundy wanted to graze his cows on federal land without rent or fees. I paid for my land and if I tried to graze my cows on other land I'd be in trouble.

The feds arbitrarily raise the fees when they want to kick ranchers out. When that doesn't work, they illegally fence off water sources, block roads, start fires that kill cattle, divert water, and flood properties.

Allegedly. You'd think that kind of stuff would be as easy to PROVE as it is to state, eh?

oh ya---getting the truth outta the feds is a snap.

Right...whatever excuse you want to wave around.

 

[bodecea]

The bundy guys aren't terrorists. They haven't threatened anybody, they are out in the community and community members are going into the gift shop where they are. One of the local pastors/business owners posted a long facebook post about his visit with them.

Riiiight, Allie. You're in the Know.

 

[JimH52]

So they have been asked to leave by representatives of the community and they are sticking there and threatening violence. So they are lying, violent, terrorist. They are just picking up multiple awards for insanity!

 

[koshergrl]

They haven't threatened violence. My Facebook has an open letter to the sheriff from locals, asking him to tell the Fed's to leave.

 

[Tilly]

So they have been asked to leave by representatives of the community and they are sticking there and threatening violence. So they are lying, violent, terrorist. They are just picking up multiple awards for insanity!

'Violent terrorists'? Who have they harmed?

 

[Dot Com]

They haven't threatened violence. My Facebook has an open letter to the sheriff from locals, asking him to tell the Fed's to leave.

link?

 

[bodecea]

They haven't threatened violence. My Facebook has an open letter to the sheriff from locals, asking him to tell the Fed's to leave.

Oh, well. Facebook.