the police would have to kill more blacks to make it "equal" ...

it's not about land ownership, it's about the government changing it's laws to serve there needs... the father and brother had already served there time in prison, and after they got out, the government wants to change them into "terrorists" and make them serve 5 more years... does that sound right to you?

On Saturday, multiple armed 'militiamen' took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge HQ to protest the sentence handed down to two Oregon ranchers accused of arson.

The ranchers accused of arson are Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon. They were each sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for alleged arsons they committed on federal lands.

According to the Washington Standard, the problem is multifaceted.

First, both men were sentenced in 2012 by now-retired U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, following the trial. Steven received one year and a day in prison for setting fires in 2001 and 2006. Dwight got 3 months for his 2001 involvement. Hogan did not believe the men had malicious intent to be labeled as terrorists under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, even though he sentenced them to jail for the time he did.

The men agreed to a plea deal that they would not appeal the 2012 sentence in order to bring the case to a close.

Both men served their sentences and were released. Now, the feds have appealed those sentences and want the mandatory minimum five-year sentence imposed on the men, and so they appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who agreed with the feds that the judge ruled illegally. However, now they are wanting to label the Hammonds as terrorists under the 1996 law in order to put them back in jail.

Aside from being thrown in jail for a second time, the Hammonds are upset because they allege no crime was ever committed.

"They called and got permission to light the fire... We usually called the interagency fire outfit - a main dispatch - to be sure someone wasn't in the way or that weather wouldn't be a problem," said Dwight's wife Susan.

In a post to their blog, the Bundy family explained that the Hammonds were merely engaging in prescribed burns to keep the land healthy and productive. And, they assert that the Bureau of Land Management also conducts these burns.

The Hammonds lit a fire on their own property that spread to public land. No one was injured, no property was destroyed and the Hammond extinguished the fire themselves, according to the Bundys. The court even ruled that the fires actually had a positive impact on the land.

"With no authority or justification to prosecute, eleven years after the fire, federal attorneys have obtained judgment that the Hammonds are terrorists and must be punished severely for their actions," explains the Bundy Family.

On November 3rd, the Bundys issued a warning, which stated,

We further warn that the incarceration of the Hammond family will spawn serious civil unrest. We advocate that all charges be dropped and that the Hammond family be allowed to return to the home and life that was so rudely interrupted. The Hammond family has paid enough for this mistake, if any mistake at all. Further punishments to the Hammonds will require restitution upon those who inflict the injustices.

We call upon aware citizens and government officials to promote the protection and freedom of the Hammond family, and by so doing, maintaining the spirit of liberty that this beloved nation is built upon.

Two months after this warning, the Bundys held true to what they wrote when they, and several other armed citizens, took over the refuge HQ.

The Bundys and the Hammonds allege that what the federal government is doing, by using the BLM to dictate the use of open lands, is a violation of the constitution. They now claim to have taken defensive action, after they allege criminal action on behalf of the federal government.

While the Bundys and the Hammonds actions are certainly questionable, they haven't harmed anyone or any property. Regardless of your position on the action of the 'militiamen,' one thing is certain - every one of them deserves due process.

Over the past 2 years, a peaceful resistance to police brutality and misconduct has risen up in the United States. This resistance is entirely bipartisan, although some will attempt to claim otherwise for their own political agendas.

On both the right and the left, there have been heartening examples of unlikely groups of citizens coming together to peacefully resist the police state. However, there are also those on both sides who dangerously call for violence, the removal of due process, and the use of state force to implement their own version of tyranny.

In the past few months, examples of the neoconservatives' calls for fascism have shocked those who are paying attention to the rise of tyranny in the U.S.

Donald Trump epitomized this fascism when he called for banning all Muslims entering the US and shutting down the internet last month. The resultant bandwagon of hate and ignorance has led to a slew of internet comments calling for turning the entire Middle East region into a "parking lot."

However, this time, instead of the far right calling for insanely violent police state measures, it's the far left. It appears that some of those on the left have thrown all logic and reason to the wayside and have begun calling, not only for the removal of due process for their fellow Americans, but also for their full-on slaughter.

On various Facebook posts about the militiamen, multiple antagonists claiming to 'support Bernie Sanders' and declaring their 'peaceful Democratic stances' have called for the murder of those men, women, and children at the Oregon refuge.Bernie Sanders would certainly not agree that it is okay to drone strike American citizens without due process.

Those who call for violence against others, who have not harmed anyone, are the epitome of all that is wrong in the world today. Regardless of your political views, or positions on issues, denying due process, even to the vilest of criminals, is the work of tyrants.

The irony here is that the folks on the left want to use the same violence, which they ostensibly oppose when not used in a manner they see fit, on people who they disagree with.

Below are some of the shocking comments from supposed 'peaceful' people who are calling for the slaughter of others.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mow-down-americans-critical-police-killings-beg-feds-slaughter-citizens/

what about gathering their funds instead of their weapons and trying something called 'appeal',,,?

how about the government following the bill of rights instead?

not really

when it comes to 'unarmed'folks, black men are twice as likely to be killed


and what is the 'goal' of these occupiers?

government infringement, changing laws to suit there needs, going against the bill of rights... nothing to do with police killing a thug gang banger, a useless degenerate that only takes away from society, never helping the people any what so ever...

nowhere did I mention 'thug gang bangers', Im speaking about unarmed men,,, if police come in contact there is some suspicion already, so that 'thug' part becomes irrelevant

when comparing the white 'thugs' with the black 'thugs', the latter are twice as likely to be killed though they are unarmed

,,but back to THIS point

what is the OBJECTIVE these 'militants' hope to achieve?

I comprehend fine, so far only a reference to what the bundys have said even comes close to an answer

so I will take it as a yes

'release the prisoners or else',, is their objective,,,

Edited for making it personal.

soufie
Site Moderator

hmmm... and i wonder why they want them released?

throwing a serious Monkeywrench into the UN's Agenda21,if States-Rights prevail in Oregon!
Obama will get IBS!

What they want is in the link in the OP....And theres lots of other stuff abt it on the internet....try Google

o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 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. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how the land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton everyday. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.

On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision. Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual that has convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area, influenced by the prosecutors for 6 straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, made a verdict and went home.(ibid)

throwing a serious Monkeywrench into the UN's Agenda21,if States-Rights prevail in Oregon!
Obama will get IBS!

^^^^Did this thug have his land taken by the fed gov also?

(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.

(r) On January 4,, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.

(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplifying further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*

(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “resentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.

(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal. If the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.

(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.

To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here)

(ibid)

like many before them with a loved one incarcerated, they believe in their innocence

unlike many before they have taken up ARMS and illegally barricaded public lands verbally threatening to kill or be killed unless they get said release

no, and neither did the 13 year old 'thug' at a playground with a toy gun who was blown away,,,

even if one is in a right to carry state, authorities have the 'discretion' to blow you away if they feel said gun may be a 'threat',,,

so, whats more of a threat than a statement that you will 'kill or be killed',,,?

So this whole thread is a "black/white" thing....got it...carry on.

no, the whole thread isn't,

my responses, as usual , are directly related to whichever post I quoted,,,,,