Well you sure brought up Black Lives matter fairly quickly....post #7 I believe....

"" Viva La ORegon militants and BLM!!!
fight back against corruption,,,,
but, isn't that what MOST extremists believe
they are doing?
should BLM take up arms in their fight too? or
might we reasonably believe there would be a
lot of dead BLM folks if that ever
happened?...lol""

....spin away.

Well you sure brought up Black Lives matter fairly quickly....post #7 I believe....

"" Viva La ORegon militants and BLM!!!
fight back against corruption,,,,
but, isn't that what MOST extremists believe
they are doing?
should BLM take up arms in their fight too? or
might we reasonably believe there would be a
lot of dead BLM folks if that ever
happened?...lol""

....spin away.

Edit...double post...but it deserves to be pointed out twice

yes, another DIRECT response to a previous post saying it was 'good for them' that they were 'fighting corruption'

is ARMED organized protest fighting 'corruption' enough of a reason for the protest to be supported, and has that standard held true of previous organized protests including those that did not even include weapons?,,,,

considering how many have openly opposed the BLM movement in these threads, it was a relevant question to inquire of the response that THIS 'movement' is receiving...

But no mention of Black Lives Matter in that previous post you claim to be addressing...thats all you.

And heres a hint....quote the post youre answering in the future...to discourage any confusion...unless youre just trying to leave yourself some wiggle room.

Enjoy the rest of your thread.

Those armed hooligans in Oregon are not heroes to be commended.
Instead, they are ...

Y'All Qaeda ... Vanilla ISIS .... Yokel Haram ... al-Shabubba

and they are waging YeeHawd.

Of course they mean business. As one commentator said about them,
"Every successful revolution starts with takeover of closed visitor center with gift shop."

I believe the actions to be a little extreme on the part of the Bundy militants at the reserve, but can somebody answer me how to make a case for injustice in a court system that is run by governments, with the threat and application of force "on their side", and a media fanning flames (usually catering to the govt agenda) for a larger market share, in a year when Oblowme claims to make gun control and the attack on peoples 2nd amendment rights a #1 priority his last year in office.... how do you get national attention to the injustices by an overbearing agency of the govt without extreme measures?

Our forefathers had a Tea Party in the Boston harbor.... to begin a battle which won us our independence. They were not popular to all either, and most thought them extreme as well, but we are not (well......) British subjects today as a result.

Perhaps if we had a govt of, for, and by the people these days, that wasn't constantly violating our rights, abusing the power of their offices, or steeped in corruption to support their own life styles and wealth, such actions wouldn't be necessary. But when you have the power, why listen to those you power over?

So I hope the results of these actions promote a conversation, not violence, to an interested public rather than to the bloodlust of the masses for entertainment value alone thru a govt controlled media and its courts.

I hope level heads prevail on both sides or I fear this to be only the beginning of such actions in this new age of tyranny and conflict.

It is NOT the people who create these wars and feudal relations with foreign countries, faiths, and races of people, but the people do have the power to stop them if you still believe in our Constitutional rights and that your vote still matters..... and a few good folks will build the brush fires of liberty in the souls of man to stand against the tyranny

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
What’s underneath the Hammond land? Natural Gas and Uranium. Just like places all over the world, conflicts are created so that they can seize the natural resources. Agenda 21 (2030) at work to force us off our lands so they can control the natural resources:

(IBID)

Is this the same court "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals" That overturned the peoples vote in California?

Agenda 21? Panic! Panic!

The govt "controls" over 51% of the lands west of the Rockies....

93% of all "govt controlled", BLM managed lands are in the 11 western states.

Go figure why privately owned ranches and farms are becoming a thing of the past. Between the govt and Monsatan the private farms and ranchers are being put out of business in favor of BIG BUSINESS with costs and regulations they can't compete with!

And then folks wonder why incidents like this happen in the west....

Thank the govt..... and its media and corporate sponsors writing the laws and regulations and spinning the agenda rhetoric!

And yes! Agenda 21 at its finest! To joke about "Panic" ..... is selling the reality short! Hopefully people will grow some balls and brains before it's too late to matter!

The Constitution and Property Rights | Tenth Amendment Center http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/04/the-constitution-and-property-rights/

CWAP! Somebody fix it please?

Hammonds Go To Prison Oregon Militia Takes Over Fed Wildlife Refuge

http://youtu.be/sNbTxMT27j4/ 13:22
-------------------
IGNORANT AMERICANS PULL THE RACE CARD ON THE BUNDY MILITA

http://youtu.be/t4EWUdzm6q8/ 06:29
* Video disputes Sputnik article & social media*

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/17/red-river-landowners-take-battle-feds-court/


Red River Landowners Take Battle with Feds to Court

by Jim Malewitz Nov. 17, 2015

Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout.

Seven families are suing the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in federal district court, accusing the agency of perpetrating an “arbitrary seizure” of land along a 116-mile strip of the river, whose meandering has spurred a century’s worth of property disputes along the Texas-Oklahoma border.

Wichita, Clay and Wilbarger counties — and the Clay County sheriff — have also signed onto the suit, filed late Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The group is bringing firepower from Austin. Lawyers from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the state’s pre-eminent conservative think tank, are representing the North Texans on the foundation’s dime.

“Our mission,” said Robert Henneke, director of the foundation’s legal center, “is to judicially oppose federal overreach and abuse. And here we have the federal government seizing tens of thousands of acres of private property inside Texas.”

A spokesman for the bureau, which oversees millions of acres of public land and minerals, said Tuesday that the agency "remains committed to working with" the Red River community through its planning process. "We share the interest of all parties in clarifying ownership and identifying appropriate management alternatives," the spokesman, Paul McGuire, said in a statement.

The lawsuit comes about 19 months after the dispute first grabbed national headlines and sparked fiery comments from Texas leaders, including Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Tuesday that he supported the landowners in their fight.

“I applaud the private property owners and county officials for standing up against the federal government’s brazen attempt to take private property from Texans,” the Republican said in a statement. “I wholeheartedly support the landowners’ in their litigation against the Bureau of Land Management, and will be filing an amicus brief in support of their lawsuit."

Questions have swirled near the stretch of the river since December 2013, when bureau representatives arrived in North Texas to discuss updates to its resource management plans in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas — specifically how the land would be used for the next 15 to 20 years.

The area includes about 90,000 acres along the Red River that the agency considers public land, with perhaps a third of it on the Texas side.

The agency has said its claim comes from a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court decision, one that delineated the boundaries between Texas and Oklahoma and assigned the feds the patches in between.

But Texans have long managed swaths of that area. They hold deeds to the land and have diligently paid their local taxes. The bureau has not fully surveyed the area, so it is not clear precisely where the public boundary lines intersect with private lands.

The agency plans to finalize the management scheme by 2018 at the earliest, frustrating residents who want a resolution now. The Texans are still paying local taxes on land they can't sell and are reluctant to make improvements amid the confusion.

The bureau has not decided whether it will close off parts of the land or make it open to the public. But since few stretches are accessible without crossing onto indisputable private property, the most likely option would involve selling off the land.

Federal officials have said they understand why Red River dwellers are concerned, but they have a strict responsibility to manage taxpayer resources — in this case, the land. They have suggested that Texans can use the obscure federal Color of Title Act, a law meant to resolve confusion over public land that others believed was private, to buy back their land, potentially for a low price. But that 87-year-old law has plenty of drawbacks, including a 160-acre limit and the inability to transfer the mineral rights beneath those lands.

The lawsuit argues that the federal government has misinterpreted Supreme Court rulings and the way the river has carved new paths in the soft land over the decades, causing the bureau to erroneously expand its footprint — in some cases more than a mile away from where the river flows now — and threaten the constitutional rights of landowners.

The bureau’s “vague assertions of ownership have put a cloud upon individual plaintiffs’ titles, preventing them from disposing of their property, borrowing against their property or otherwise fully enjoying their property,” the suit says. It's the feds’ duty, the North Texans' lawyers argue, to prove through surveys where precisely their claim extends.

The plaintiffs include Patrick Canan, who has owned the title to about 2,000 acres of land for farming and ranching in Wichita and Clay counties since 1963. The bureau estimates it owns about 1,400 of those acres, the suit says.

Kenneth Aderholt, meanwhile, holds the title to about 700 acres in Wilbarger and Wichita counties — about half of which the feds claim. His family has farmed and ranched there since 1941.

The complaint also argues that the federal government’s claim has jeopardized the counties’ sovereignty and their ability to levy taxes on the land and “regulate and provide services for the health, benefit and welfare of its citizens.”

Kenneth Lemons, Jr., the Clay County sheriff, has also signed onto the lawsuit, which argues that the murkiness prevents him from enforcing certain criminal laws — like those related to poaching or trespassing — on lands he’s not sure who owns. That potentially makes him liable for any consequences, the lawsuit argues.

Area residents have expressed concerns over safety along the disputed stretch, according to survey results the bureau published last year. Some objected to encroachments from dirt bikers, four-wheelers, feral hogs and trespassers. A few said methamphetamine labs had cropped up on the land law enforcement officers seldom patrol.

Though it’s not clear whether the state of Texas would have standing to wade into the private property dispute, some are calling on its leaders to add their names to the lawsuit.

Henneke, of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, suggested that the state could still argue that the bureau is threatening its sovereignty.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has not said whether he will join the fight. On Tuesday, Cynthia Meyer, his spokeswoman, said the Republican "is concerned" with the bureau's actions and "is monitoring the situation."

As the litigation winds through court, Texans in Congress are pursing a legislative solution in a perennially gridlocked body. U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas are pushing fixes that would require surveys of the entire disputed stretch, expand Color of Title Act provisions and prevent any contested lands from being included in the federal resource management plan.

Thornberry’s bill passed out of the House Committee on Natural Resources in September.



same Crap as in Oregon,FED-Landgrab!

very interesting!

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/04/unbelievable-update-oregon-bundy-militia-standoff-the-federal-prosecutor-at-the-heart-of-the-hammond-family-problem/

“Amanda Marshall: Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year.

Marshall called Hogan’s punishments “unlawful.” The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge’s order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.” (link)

So what would prompt U.S. Attorney for the Sate of Oregon Ms Amanda Marshall to file such a “rare” appeal? And, what motivation might lay behind her intentions?

A review of Amanda Marshall reveals some rather disturbing facts.

First, she was an Obama appointee. A very left-wing activist appointee who took office October 7th 2011. Marshall had no experience at all as a federal prosecutor before being given the job as a U.S. Attorney for Oregon.

Marshall was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon Department of Justice. [Pay attention to this little “child advocacy aspect” because it might play a larger role later on.] Before that, she served as a deputy district attorney in Coos County. Why? Apparently it was because the White House wanted a woman for the job.

She lived in a commune and her life-history, all the way back to a childhood with an activist mom, is a representative story of how a liberal moonbat is created:

[2012] Marshall’s a bit of an outsider — having no prior experience in the federal system — and they know little about her.

So it may surprise them to learn Marshall spent part of her childhood in a commune, watched a Super Bowl at Grace Slick’s house, hung out backstage at Grateful Dead concerts, sang and danced for years in a small-town community theater and — as a young prosecutor in Coos County — carried a 9 mm pistol to crime scenes because, as she recently noted, “That’s how we rolled in the Coos.”

Marshall, 42, would be the first to acknowledge — with all deference to the Grateful Dead — that hers has been a long, strange trip indeed.

The past two years alone, as she ascended from a little-known supervisor in the child advocacy section of the Oregon Department of Justice to a corner office in the venerable Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse, was a grinding, sometimes demoralizing affair with a dash of political controversy. (read more)

You really have to read the whole story, including her sisters arrest on drug charges, her estranged family and how her own daughter views her as eccentric to get the full scope of the person who was in charge of a “Childs Advocacy Section” and then later became U.S. Attorney for the state of Oregon. You really have to read it all.

But wait, it gets better.

After winning the sentencing appeal – In May of 2015 activist Amanda Marshall stepped down from her job as U.S. Attorney for Oregon, citing “health concerns“.

A very strange sketchy exit to use the reasoning “Health Concerns” because she was under internal (Office of Inspector General ) investigation of her for “stalking” a co-worker U.S. Attorney Scott Kerin:

[2015] The prosecutor that U.S. Attorney for Oregon Amanda Marshall is accused of stalking was at the time under 24-hour-a-day armed protective guard because of a contract Mexican drug dealers placed on his life.

That news adds a bizarre turn in a situation that appears to have cost Marshall, the top federal prosecutor in Oregon, her job.

Sources familiar with the situation tell WW Marshall’s subordinate, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Kerin, filed a hostile workplace environment complaint against Marshall after receiving numerous unwanted text and email messages from her, and after she followed him outside working hours.

At the time, federal agents were protecting Kerin against a credible threat on his life. Such precautions are rare, according to people familiar with the U.S. attorney’s office. Kerin’s wife, Michelle, is also a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office. (read more)

no mention of black lives, but a mention of fighting corruption,, thus the comparison to BLM

and thank you, I hope to do just that

Live From Burns Oregon -

#aslongasittakesoregon:

http://youtu.be/yvpqCo-hT30/. LIVE STREAM

these idiots are such ****ing jokers.