3168 US Federal Government vs Oregon Ranchers: Cruel and Unusual Punishments
In 2010, the United States of America charged Oregon Ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond with Arson for:1) Setting a government pre-approved “prescribed burn” fire which spread to 139 acres of unoccupied state land – actually raising its value according to Bureau of Land Management reports. Nobody was hurt, damages at the time were under $100 and the Hammonds extinguished the fire themselves without outside assistance.2) Setting an unapproved “back burn” fire to save their property from a lightning-related range fire. Given their ignorance to the fact the Hammond property would be threatened by an act of God, the ranchers did not receive prior government authorization and a “burn ban” was in effect. The ranch was saved, but one acre of government land was impacted – again raising its value, according to BLM reports. The Hammonds openly admitted to both incidents and thus the jury found them guilty of those charges, dismissing others. To avoid continued deliberations on unresolved charges, a plea deal was reached with the state. The Government requested a five-year mandatory minimum sentence in accordance with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Judge Hogan thought using a terrorism related statute in the case would be improper and would violate the Eight Amendment, constituting cruel or unusual punishment. Dwight was sentenced to three months in prison and Steven to twelve months and one day – which they both served. While they were in prison, the Government filed an appeal to the sentence with the Ninth Circuit Court and received the mandatory minimum they originally requested. On Monday January 4th, The Hammonds surrendered themselves to continue their unconstitutional five-year mandatory minimum sentences.Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/government-vs-oregon-ranchersThe Truth About The Oregon Rancher Standoffhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1JzuQf4DMU
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope you're doing well.
As promised, this is our follow-up to yesterday's video, which was the truth about the Oregon Rancher standoff.
And this is the backstory, the reasons why these dominoes are falling.
Why is this happening?
Okay.
So in 2010, the United States of America charged Oregon rancherist Dwight Hammond and his son, Stephen Hammond, with arson for, and I quote, 1.
Setting a government pre-approved prescribed burn fire, which spread to 139 acres of unoccupied state land, actually raising the value of that land according to the Bureau of Land Management reports, Nobody was hurt.
Damages at the time were under $100, and the Hammonds extinguished the fire themselves without outside assistance.
2.
They set an unapproved backburn fire to save their property from a lightning-related range fire.
Given their ignorance of the fact that the Hammond property would be threatened by an act of God, the ranchers did not receive prior government authorization, and a burn ban was in effect.
Just me, I would say, don't burn down my house, would be slightly more important than don't burn down a sagebrush.
The ranch, the Hammond's ranch, was saved, but one count of one acre of government land was impacted again, according to BLM reports, raising its foundation.
The Hammonds openly admitted to both incidents, and thus the jury found them guilty of those charges, dismissing others.
To avoid continued deliberations on unresolved charges, a plea deal was reached with the state.
The government requested a five-year mandatory minimum sentence in accordance with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
So, fires which accidentally spread, which happens when you are lighting fires in order to control a fire, and we'll see what happened with the government at one point in the future.
Sometimes the wind changes, and sometimes shite happens.
And so they burned 139 acres, which improved the value.
And then another acre.
And so if you feel that being charged and sent to prison for five years for a burn that got a little bit out of control under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is a little bit on the excessive side, well, Judge Hogan would agree with you.
He thought using a terrorism-related statute in the case would be improper and would violate the Eighth Amendment, constituting cruel or unusual punishment.
So Dwight was sentenced to three months in prison and Stephen to 12 months and one day, which they both served.
Ah, but you see, the plot thickens.
While they were in prison, the government filed an appeal to the sentence with the Ninth Circuit Court and received the mandatory minimum they originally requested.
So it's back to jail they go.
On Monday, January the 4th, The Hammonds surrendered themselves to continue their unconstitutional five-year mandatory minimum sentence.
And remember, Donald Trump, Muslim immigration, everybody was screaming about the unconstitutionality of it.
And yet this story seems to be strangely absent from the mainstream media.
I've got a couple of theories, but I'm...
Curious what you think.
Why is this being somewhat under-reported on, to say the least?
Let me know in the comments below.
And, of course, the sources for all of this are in the comments below.
So, the Hammonds are filing an appeal to review the sentences, and an associate of theirs named William Joseph Goodes, you know, it's just struck me that it's kind of unfortunate that in 2014, of course, the rancher's name was Bundy, which older people remember as a serial killer and young people remember as a slob from married with children.
It's a shame that his name is Bundy and this guy's name is Good.
It's just the way that things roll.
So, 12-15-2015, he wrote an affidavit.
Now, an affidavit is a sworn statement in court.
It's equivalent to being under oath, and violations of it can get you up to five years in jail.
It's considered perjury, so if you lie in an affidavit, that's bad.
And this guy knows, based upon the nature of what's going on at the moment, whether he knew beforehand or not, who knows.
But there's going to be some scrutiny of his affidavit.
So, I'm going to say it's most likely true, because he knows it's going to be scrutinized, and he's effectively under oath.
So he wrote, After the criminal trial, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, stipulated a $400,000 fine as part of a civil suit, despite BLM range conservation agent Dave Ward and retired BLM fire specialist Roy Hoag's testimony that there had occurred no damage to land, that land productivity had improved, no fire suppression or rehabilitation costs existed.
William Goode went on to say, quote, On February 14, 2014, the BLM denied renewal of grazing permits to the Hammonds, rendering their co-mingled private property slash BLM land unusable for grazing, reducing the value of their private property.
So what does this mean?
Well, on August 26, 2014, in the civil case, mediator Susan Leeson held a mediation which resulted in a stipulated agreement in principle compelling Stephen and Dwight to grant the BLM first right of refusal in the sale of the Hammond Ranch in the event of inability of the Hammonds to meet the full payment of the $400,000 stipulated fine.
So, what that means is that they, of course, impose this $400,000 fine, and if they are unable to pay the fine, then...
The ranch goes up for sale, the 10,000 acres and all of the property on it goes up for sale, and the Bureau of Land Management gets the first right of refusal.
In other words, they're the ones who get to take the land.
So you could call this kind of like a shakedown.
Ooh, you set fire to an acre of government property.
All right, we're going to take away your multi-hundred-year homesteaded, worked, buried your relatives on ranch and land.
So that's not particularly great.
To continue with Good's Affidavit, quote, to December 14th, 2015, the Hammonds have paid the BLM $200,000 with the remaining $200,000 due before the end of 2015.
Should the Hammonds be unable to make payment, according to the stipulated agreement, they would be compelled to sell ranch land with the BLM having first right of refusal.
Or with the Hammonds facing further prosecution for failure to meet the civil monetary issue.
Now this is kind of true as a whole.
You don't really own anything except perhaps your toothbrush, because of course all of your property is subject to taxation, to property taxes, even if you're renting.
It's just the landlord happens to pay it and bundles it into your rent.
So you don't really own anything in the modern world.
You have it by permission of the government, who can then take it away anytime.
Pretty much you displease them.
To continue with the affidavit quote, it should be noted that the February 14, 2014, BLM denial to renew the Hammond Ranch grazing permits significantly reduces the value of the Hammond Ranch.
No federal compensation has ever been given for the loss of grazing permits, which the Hammond family purchased in February 1964, which is a very long time ago.
Now, these grazing permits are permissions...
To have your cattle, of course, graze on public lands.
They're generally renewed every 10 years, according to federal law.
And it's a multi-step renewal grazing process.
And even applying for and getting the renewal permit can take over a year or more.
One of the BLM representatives has described it thus, quote...
It starts with an application when the permit has expired, and then the next step is to go out to the field with an interdisciplinary team comprised of a rangeland resource specialist, a botanist, archaeologist, wildlife biologist, hydrologist, And they go out and do a rangeland health assessment to determine the condition and see if it's functioning properly and so on.
Boy, it's hard to imagine how human beings evolved as agricultural managers with livestock without all of this grab bag of multidisciplinary experts finding out whether their cattle can eat grass.
Hey!
Don't touch that grass!
We need to scan it for X. And anti-grazing suits sometimes file lawsuits against the BLM for renewing these permits, so it gets to be quite a legal tangle, to put it mildly.
The Hammonds seek relief from federal court abuse through a writ of habeas corpus.
So they're trying to get some relief from these sentences.
So what have people been saying about this situation?
Well, the Harney County Sheriff David Ward said, quote, the Hammonds have turned themselves in.
It's time for you to leave our community, go home, be with your own families, and end this peacefully.
You said you were here to help the citizens of Harney County.
That help ended when a peaceful protest became an armed and unlawful protest.
Scald, scold, scold.
Megyn Kelly, of course, the well-known...
Personality on Fox News, Megyn Kelly said to Ammon Bundy, you know the argument on the other side, which is these ranchers, whom you support but are not directly involved, had their day in court, and they were found guilty, and it went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied their appeal.
Isn't that the way it's supposed to work in our country when it comes to the rule of law?
Fine point, Megyn.
Let's find out if consistency works.
In other areas, Senator Ted Cruz, quote, Every one of us has a constitutional right to protest, to speak our minds, but we don't have a constitutional right to use force and violence and to threaten force and violence against others.
It is our hope that the protesters there will stand down peaceably, that there will not be a violent confrontation.
So, when people come to take your land according to a judgment that one judge ruled unconstitutional, just obey.
See?
Because...
Because I don't know.
Anyway, let's get on.
Senator Marco Rubio.
Quote, you can't be lawless.
We live in a republic.
There are ways to change the laws of this country and the policies.
If we get frustrated with it, that's why we have elections.
That's why we have people we can hold accountable.
So holding people accountable, very, very important to Marco Rubio.
Let's see how that works out.
Montel Williams.
Not a senator, I believe.
Quote, it appears, hashtag Oregon under attack, by a bunch of undereducated terrorist buffoons who follow Clive and Bundy.
Shall we send them to meet ISIS? Totally fine with a massive use of deadly force in Oregon.
Oregon, sorry.
Origami?
I keep getting that wrong.
wrong people keep telling me.
Oregon to take out Ammon Bundy.
Then let's give them some put this down using National Guard with shoot to kill orders.
Montel Williams.
And of course I've seen a lot of comments about this.
I'm even on my own videos.
Shoot to kill.
Airstrikes.
Go in with tanks.
Open up the bottom with a dune-style giant worm and have them swallowed whole.
Boy, you know, so people protesting what they consider an injustice...
I wonder if Montel Williams, things like Ferguson riots and Baltimore riots, when the blacks were rioting and causing untold millions of dollars worth of damage and setting fire to cars and burning down and looting stores and so on.
A little bit more than finding a set of keys and going into an unoccupied government building over the holidays.
I wonder if Montel Williams was calling for a massive use of deadly force in Ferguson or in Baltimore or in Los Angeles in the riots in the 90s.
Shoot to kill orders.
Was he calling for that when black people were rioting violently?
Or is he only calling for that when white people attempt to protest relatively peacefully?
Ha!
I wonder if there's any double standard in race in America.
Oh, we'll get to that my friends.
We'll get to that.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy held a Citizens for Constitutional Freedom press conference on January the 4th, reading a joint, quote, redress of grievance from many freedom-oriented groups regarding the treatment of the Hammond family.
And by the way, there are hundreds of other ranchers facing the same kind of scope creep of government land ownership and being pushed off their land against their will.
These are quotes...
From this press conference, reading of the redress of grievance, quote,"...after extensive research on the Hammond case, we the people of these States United have reason to believe that Dwight and Stephen Hammond were not afforded their rights to due process as protected by the United States Constitution.
We hold compelling evidence that the U.S. government abused the federal court system, situating the Hammond family into duress as effort to force the Hammonds to sell their Steen Mountain property to a federal agency." We hold confirming video evidence of federal agents exhibiting a culture of intimidation toward individuals and businesses within the borders of Harney County.
That federal agent, by fire, destroy private property and that the Hammond family are being denied the same protection of the laws that are enjoyed by federal agents.
We have substantial evidence that the U.S. Attorney's Office exploited an act of Congress imposing cruel and unusual punishment upon residents of Harney County.
We hold sure evidence that Dwight and Stephen Hammond are being subject for the same offense twice put in jeopardy, including that the Ninth District Court of Appeals is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
And this is just a sample of their claims.
We'll put links to the entire redress.
Into the description, there are more constitutional violations that are claimed.
A part of the Fifth Amendment, of course, is no double jeopardy.
You can't be tried twice for the same crime, which prevents the government simply trying you until it gets the verdict that it wants.
Now, just to point out...
When certain groups in society just mindlessly chant things like, I don't know, hands up, don't shoot!
Or, I don't know, no justice, no peace!
This is a little bit more recent.
They claim to have evidence.
They've got evidence of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the U.S. government.
It's a little bit more recent.
They had a press conference.
They're not just setting fire to a drugstore and running off with everything that's not nailed down and some things that are nailed down.
So, again, we just want to compare and contrast, but we'll get more into that in a moment.
So, let's look at some government accountability.
You see, it is an act of terrorism!
Sorry, I hate to have to half scream it, but that's what it sounds like in my head.
It is an act of terrorism, you see, to set fire to property and damage other people's property.
That is just brutal.
139 acres plus one acre, which was set fire.
No one damaged, no one injured, no firefighters used.
They put the fire out themselves for the most part, and the value of the land was increased.
So that's what they're being charged with terrorism about.
Government employees.
Created the Cerro Grande fire in May of 2000, starting a planned, quote, controlled burn during the windy season without proper oversight or planning.
The guy was kind of a novice in charge of it.
He basically just threw a bunch of napalm at explosives.
At least that's what it seemed to be.
So this Cerro Grande fire, May 2000, what happened when the government tried a controlled burn?
Well, After more than 47,000 acres burned, 400 homes were destroyed and over a billion dollars in damage has occurred.
How many government officials faced charges of any kind, let alone terrorism slash death penalty slash sell your children's soul to Satan charges?
47,000 acres burned.
In case you're counting, 47,000 acres is 338 times larger than the Hammond fire.
The Hammond fire was claimed to have caused $100 in damage.
This fire started by the government that spread to private property was over a billion dollars in damage.
I wonder if anyone faced any charges.
Well, of course not.
A report from the National Park Service Federal Board of Inquiry recommended no disciplinary action be taken against individual or involved employees.
So, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt later claimed that there was not criminal negligence and thus there would be no criminal charges.
Come on.
Oh, my Lord.
Bruce Babbitt said, these are mistakes.
There's nobody out there conspiring to burn down the forests.
Good heavens!
Apparently this was not any kind of precedent.
Look, I mean, so these two ranchers for setting a fire, one with permission that got a little out of control, burned a bit of government land where nobody lived and nobody was harmed, and also set a fire to protect their own property from a lightning strike fire, which burnt one acre of government land.
These guys are going to jail for five years.
How many...
Bankers, for instance, went to jail for the 2007 financial crisis that wiped out trillions of dollars and crippled economies worldwide, wiping out up to 40% of the wealth of America.
Only one banker has gone to jail for that.
But, you see, two ranchers must be imprisoned and branded as terrorists, imprisoned for a combined decade for putting out a fire.
Because that's justice.
Michael Brown's stepfather...
Lewis Head incited a riot by yelling, burn this bitch down!
Burn this MF down!
And they did.
But he wasn't charged.
Much less faced terrorism charges.
And the damages there have been estimated in the millions of dollars.
And that's a little bit more than $100.
So...
Nobody's saying.
I'm not saying do anything illegal.
What I am saying is, let's try at least and have a vaguely consistent standard for, say, minorities, government employees, as there are for cattle ranchers, who put out fires.
All right, so what is the Bureau of Land Management?
Well, in 1812, I love it when we do the history whiplash.
200 years!
The General Land Office was created to oversee the selling of public lands...
See, the government owns everything, but you can beg them for some of it and pay for something they never homesteaded or developed or improved or fenced or built or irrigated or planted or anything.
The government just magically owns stuff because flag and voodoo.
In 1946, the General Land Office and the Grazing Service were merged and became the modern Bureau of Land Management.
The practice of selling public lands to private interests was unofficially ended in 1934, but a 1976 act, largely written by the BLM itself, made it official.
The government will no longer sell public lands unless there are explicit benefits.
So, this of course was after Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, where it was theorized that DDT... Thinned out the shells of birds and there'd be no spring because all the beep-beep-beep birdies will die.
And this banned DDT worldwide, which caused the deaths of about 60 million people because of mosquitoes and malaria and other infectious diseases.
And Rachel Carson's theories were largely proven to be false.
But, you know, with 60 million dead, 10 holocausts?
What does it really matter, apparently?
So, of course, this is typical government program stuff.
You have one job, which is to transfer government lands to private hands.
And then you pass a law saying, we're never going to do that.
Okay, so then disband.
No!
Because we're now stuffed to the gills with leftists, socialists, communists, and radical environmentalists who perceive human beings to be a pimple, cancerous stain upon the face of Mother Earth's Gaia's perfect magic boobie.
And therefore, we must return nature to its...
The absolute pristine, uncontrolled wilderness aspect, because about 98% of species have gone extinct throughout history.
Mother Nature is a bit of a murderous psychopath, but let's put her in charge, rather than ranchers who want to control and improve the land, where birds prefer to land on them and the animals do better.
Sorry, that wasn't in the PowerPoint.
I just, uh...
I mean, and then I'd like to riff.
Originally, BLM holdings were described as land nobody wanted.
The professed mission of the BLM is, quote, to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
End quote.
But if I could write the rest, unless you're a white rancher who wants to graze cattle, in which case, bend over and grab your spurs.
We're coming in and there's not a lot of lubricant.
The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state, and private lands.
And these lands' mineral rights have been severed from the surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862, which we'll get to in a moment.
Ranchers hold nearly 18,000 permits and leases for livestock grazing on 155 million acres of BLM public lands.
In 2009, BLM opened Renewable Energy Coordination offices in order to approve and oversee wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal projects on BLM-managed lands.
There are currently more than 63,000 oil and gas wells on BLM public lands.
Total energy leases generated approximately $5.4 billion in 2013, an amount divided among the Treasury, the States, and Native American groups.
So, nice!
I look at a map.
I call it mine.
If you want to use it, pay me lots of money.
I think if you're in an Italian neighborhood and the guy with the shark pinstripe shiny suit comes by itching and scratching at his barely there mustache, I think that's called a shakedown.
Pay protection money!
Or something nasty might happen to your ranch.
The National Landscape Conservation System, which is essentially a massive wildlife and nature conservation program, is also overseen by the BLM. It's mission to conserve, protect, and restore these nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.
As Hamlet would say, words, words, words.
The BLM also manages free-roaming feral horses and burrows on their public land.
I like feral horses.
It sounds like they're vampiric walking dead zombie horses that haunt your dreams.
So they manage these feral horses and burrows because they're obligated to protect them under the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burrows Act of 1971.
Great to see Congress doing a functional job.
As of 2014, there were more than 49,000 horses and burrows on BLM-managed land, exceeding the BLM's estimated appropriate management level by almost 22,500.
So...
I guess they can't stop the horses from having sex, although I'm sure there's a department that tries to wedge themselves in.
The deer population, we're going to get to deer in a moment, right?
So they have way too many horses and burrows according to what they say.
The deer population is currently 10 times what it was in the 1700s.
The deer population, that's more in Yosemite.
But the deer population is also destroying the forest because there's way too many according to what the forests can sustain.
Because the BLM accused the Hammonds of poaching deer and covering up the evidence by starting the 2006 fire.
There was no evidence to support the claim.
But they're so bad, the BLM is so bad at managing their own animal population that they have actually resorted to selling off almost 1,800 horses for meat.
And they charged $10 a head, but also paid $140,000 to deliver them, which is like you ordering horses.
A ten dollar cable from China and some guy swimming across the ocean to deliver it to you.
And there's something called the Adopt a Horse program.
So the deer population is ten times what it used to be.
They have way too many horses and way too many burrows.
But apparently hunting is a big problem.
And of course the Hammonds have 10,000 acres of their own land that they can hunt upon.
Why would they go hunting on government land?
But anyway, more notes about that of course in the description below.
So here's a graphic, and it looks like pretty much the left coast is what we call that.
Psoriasis, embarrassment, massive pimples, communist bloodstains.
This is government-owned land in the United States.
In red, today the federal government owns and manages roughly 640 million acres of land, over a quarter of the land in the United States.
Well, that's all you need to know about Texas.
We'll get a little bit more into that in a moment.
Government-owned land as a percentage of the entire state.
Nevada, 85%.
Utah, 65%.
There are three postage-stamped corners of Mormons, I think.
Idaho, 62%.
Alaska, 61%.
Oregon.
Oregon, sorry, 53%.
Wyoming, 48%.
California, 46%.
And Colorado, 36%.
Government owned land by managing agency in total acres.
This is in millions.
BLM has 247.3.
Forest Service 192.9.
Fish and Wildlife Service 89.1.
National Park Service 79.6.
Department of Defense 14.4 million, which makes me think of an old modem.
And so, yeah, quite a lot of land under their management.
Some indications of corruption in the Bureau of Land Management.
Take a break.
Take a moment.
Lie down, people.
Massage your temples, because there is a giant, largely unaccountable government agency that seems to have some aspect of corruption, because as Lord Acton said many years ago, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
But somehow we know that power corrupts, but if we give the government all this power, they'll be perfect angels of magic socialist goodness.
August 2015, Texas farmer Tommy Henderson was bestowed rights to ownership and use of the property that had been in his family since 1904.
Happy birthday, N1. For a century you are.
The land was taken away from him by a federal court judgment and given to the Bureau of Land Management over 30 years ago.
Breitbart wrote, Don't you love it when two giant government agencies are fighting over your land?
Casualty?
One.
That would be you.
Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry, great name, fresh from his cameo in The Hobbit, said, It is good that Mr.
Henderson was finally able to get back a portion of his land that he lost in the 1980s, but it never should have happened in the first place.
Three decades to correct that mistake is ridiculous.
And, quote, actually, for a government stand, it's pretty fast, I would say.
There are dozens of other property owners along the Red River in Texas who've lost over 90,000 acres of land to the BLM.
This includes a youth camp owned by the Boy Scouts of America, which is in danger of being seized by the BLM due to a state line dispute between Oklahoma and Texas, the only two states, I believe, in the union who solve state line disputes with a line dancing contest.
And, um...
Texas Governor and former Attorney General Gregory Abbott quote, I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations.
Well, that, of course, is what the government does.
It's an agency but a monopoly of force in a given geographical area.
It's the only agency or the only group of individuals allowed to initiate the use of force against peaceful citizens.
And that's kind of what's going on here.
And, you know, it's funny because people say to me, but by golly, Steph, how would you protect property without a government?
For those just listening, I had a physical spasm.
Texas Governor Gregory Abbott, quote, the BLM now inexplicably seeks to take control of thousands of acres of private land for undetermined recreational activities.
End quote.
I assume, since they're a bunch of hippie eco-fascists, it's probably something like this.
420, blaze it, my friend.
To continue his quote, he says, throughout the process, the BLM has minimized the landowner's grave and legitimate concerns while providing no clarity regarding the authority for taking the land in the first place.
His quote continues, explaining to landowners that the process is long and complex, that surveys will be done, or that landowners will eventually be able to file a color of title lawsuit is neither a solution nor solace.
Instead, it is an illegal taking.
So, protesters have alleged that when private landowners refused to sell, the federal government got aggressive, diverting water during the 1980s into the rising Malheur lakes.
Eventually, the lake flooded homes, corals, barns, and graze lands.
Ranches who were broke and destroyed then begged the government to buy their useless ranches.
Funny, when you drown people out of their land and destroy its value, they're willing to sell it to you for pennies on the dollar.
A conflict between the BLM and Oregon gold miners reached a boiling point in the summer of 2015.
The BLM attempted to claim the surface land of a gold mine and use it as an excuse to close down its operations, but was met with staunch opposition.
Interestingly, the agency acknowledged that the miners had mining rights, but disputed their ownership of the surface land.
Kind of like owning your house, but not the land it's built on.
After the BLM issued a cease and desist notice, the miners refused to comply and called upon members of the Oath Keepers organization to help safeguard their rights.
In April 2015, Emmon Bundy told Reuters that his family was monitoring the situation and had already dispatched family representatives to Oregon.
The miners are currently raising funds to fight the BLM in court.
And now these are just a few tip of the tip of the snowflake of the iceberg of the many, many complaints about the Bureau of Land Management.
Now, Agenda 21.
You may have seen this in the comments and assumed it was some tinfoil hat conspiracy basement dwelling neckbeard paranoia.
Maybe.
But let's talk about the facts anyway.
At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on June 13, 1992, 178 governments voted to adopt...
Agenda 21, including the United States.
Agenda 21 is a 700-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into four sections.
I'm going to read all of them to you.
No, I'm not.
Tempting.
Section 1.
Social and economic dimensions is directed towards combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision-making.
Wake up.
I know that's bureaucratic speak, but nonetheless, when a whole bunch of governments sign a document saying that they're into achieving a more sustainable population, that's population control.
That's not good in general.
A sustainable population generally involves culling or the releasing of predators into the population of animals.
And so, yeah, unless you're looking forward to being disassembled for Chinese burgers to pay off the national debt, it seems like this would be something you want to pay attention to.
Changing consumption patterns, controlling money.
Achieving a more sustainable population, culling.
The releasing of predators is generally, I don't know what, third-worlders and or war as a whole to cull the population and sustainable settlement is controlling land and resources, which of course is what is going on here.
Section 2, Conservation and Management of Resources for Development, includes Atmospheric Protection, Combating Deforestation, Protecting Fragile Environments, Conservation of Biological Diversity, Biodiversity, Control of Pollution and the Management of Biotechnology and Radioactive Wastes.
Section 3.
Strengthening the role of major groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, non-government organizations, local authorities, business and industry, and workers, and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Apparently, white guys can go hose themselves down with invisibility rays because they're not really mentioned, males in particular.
So, I don't know, what is not counted here?
Business and industry, workers, local authorities, indigenous peoples, community, farmers, imaginary friends, unicorns, dragons, anything that moves or doesn't move or is alive or is not alive.
I mean, why not just say, I, everything, governments will control atoms for socialist goodness, promoting joy.
Holy pravda, Batman.
Section 4, means of implementation.
Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions, and financial mechanisms.
Now, the United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but Agenda 21 is a legally non-binding statement of intent, and not a treaty because otherwise you could hold people accountable for it.
It's just a general impulse towards massive demonic 1984 style control over everything that is and everything that will be and everything that was.
Thus the United States Senate was not required to hold a formal debate or vote on it because it wasn't binding.
Giant big government environmentalist wet dream which manifests in anti-property rights, anti-freedom and the kind of unconstitutional stuff that's being alleged in the Hammond case.
Now several states and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21 with Alabama being the first state to prohibit government participation.
In Agenda 21.
So it's enough for state governments to get interested and something you might want to read up on a little bit more.
So...
Let's get to it.
Oh, I denied myself.
Conclusions in the last presentation, but you're going to get a few now, if you like it or not.
And if you don't, just turn me off.
So...
There's this idea that there are these disinterested magical socialist experts who are going to protect the land and everything that's on it, whereas private owners don't give a crap about it.
I mean, this is complete madness.
There's no possible way to reduce something to crap quicker than to socialize it, to make it unowned.
Just look at private property on a street and then look at the abandoned lot filled with needles and condoms and shoes and homeless people and the broken dreams of the future.
Go and look at Detroit, and so on.
So when something goes from private ownership to generally unowned, socially owned, collectively owned, it turns to crap.
There's a reason why you don't change the oil in your rental car, because you're just passing through.
Now, this government power against these ranchers, there's two ways that tyranny, of course, generally manifests itself fast and slow.
Look at my very conceptualized...
So the fast way is they just impose it.
But the slow way is you simply raise more and more difficulties for a particular behavior until people give up and forget it.
So this government power is designed to paralyze.
I mean, picture this.
I mean, man, oh man.
Just imagine.
Just imagine for a moment.
You are a rancher.
Not the Jolly Rancher fun-tasting kind, but the kind that wants his property, say, to not burn down when lightning sets fire to a bunch of brush and sagebrush and juniper trees somewhere out in the bushland.
The fire is coming towards your house.
But you know all about the Hammonds.
What are you going to do?
Are you going to try?
Are you going to try and stop the fire?
Are you going to set fire?
Oh, BLM is like, I'm sorry, it's 4.30 and we're government employees, so we're off...
Basically draining the fiscal blood of the next generation for our pensions.
Please leave a message after the...
And what are you going to do?
Are you going to set that break fire?
Are you going to set fire to something that's going to drive back invasive species that are harming your cattle or your crops?
Because you know what happened to the Hammonds.
What are you going to do?
You're going to feel paralyzed.
Now you know that sooner or later one of those fires is coming your way.
Are you going to want to keep your property or are you going to want to sell it?
Before you end up with five years in prison or before you end up with massive fines where basically you sell your property and end up with nothing.
So it's designed to motivate people to act as the government wants them to act without directly passing a law or using eminent domain to seize their property.
You just make it more and more difficult and scary and frightening and confusing and baffling and dangerous to be a rancher.
Next thing you know, hey, a bunch of people don't want to be ranchers anymore and we've got the land.
That's how this kind of stuff occurs.
And look, the fact that all these ranchers are being pushed off this land and there are hundreds of people with hundreds of ranchers in conflict with the BLM, have a look in your grocery cart.
Notice the price of food going up just a little bit.
Of course, part of that is the massive amount of corn that's being shipped off to make ethanol for pseudo-environmental concerns.
But of course, some of it is the fact that a lot of these people are being driven off their lands.
A lot of people don't want to be farmers, don't want to be ranchers anymore.
And I really, really dislike the characterization, and with good reason.
The fact that I dislike it doesn't mean anything, but it's good reason.
Any rebellion, like if you're going to say, anyone who disobeys the law, anyone who does a peaceful occupation of a public space, that is illegitimate, they're terrorists, they're militants, they should be gunned down, according to Montel Williams.
Okay, well, by that definition, It's called the fruit of the poison tree.
In other words, if the initial thing is bad, all that follows after it is bad.
If I go and steal $1,000, whatever I buy with that $1,000 is an illegitimate purpose where I do not gain legitimate property rights.
So if disobeying the law, if not working through the existing system, but disobeying the law is illegitimate, then the entire U.S. government is illegitimate, because that's exactly what the Founding Fathers did.
That's exactly how the U.S. government gained its independence from England.
It was not a peaceful transfer.
It was a war against the British government and the British troops.
Now, these guys aren't shooting anyone.
So, that is illegitimate.
Because they're then acting illegitimately against an organization whose origins were far worse than what these protesters are doing.
Therefore, you're saying that what makes them illegitimate is the authority of the US government.
The US government itself is illegitimate based upon this reasoning because any disobedience of laws is illegitimate.
Therefore, down to the present time, it is illegitimate.
By that definition, the French resistance was illegal, of course, in Vichy-occupied France in Germany after May 1940.
So the French resistance, illegitimate.
Oh, were there any Jews who fought back against Nazi encroachments or tried to get out of concentration camps through armed resistance?
Illegitimate!
You see, they were breaking the law.
What about slaves in the antebellum South who tried to escape, who made it through the Underground Railroad to Canada?
Illegitimate!
See, they're breaking the laws.
They are breaking property rights.
They are the property of their owners.
Women who fight for suffrage, who occupied public spaces and went through series of civil disobedience in order to gain the right to vote.
Illegitimate!
Wrong!
Terrorists!
Well, any female slave who tried to resist the rape of her master.
You see, her vagina belonged to him, as surely as my snuffbox belonged to my grandfather, and therefore she was denying him his legitimate property rights under the law to resist rape.
Illegitimate!
She was a terrorist!
Her vagina withholding.
Gandhi and his resistance to the British.
Mandela and his resistance to a white South Africa.
These are all illegitimate.
In the 1990s, in the early 1990s, a lot of British people did not pay the poll tax instituted by Margaret Thatcher.
Illegitimate terrorists!
You see, this is a complete and total double standard.
See, when the left does it, when the left does civil disobedience, it's heroic.
It's a protest.
It's no justice, no peace.
When the right does it, they're crazed militant terrorists, bent on destroying and breaking the law, and it's completely illegitimate.
When the right suggests something that the leftists don't like, the unconstitutionality or potential unconstitutionality is massively important and the only thing that matters.
But when there's evidence of actual unconstitutional behavior as the Hammonds are charging, well then they're just crazed, psychotic militia who are mad, mental, crazy old white guys clinging to their guns and imagining they're living 200 years ago.
When minorities do it, no justice, no peace.
When whites do it, Well, just plain old terrorism.
So, I'm not saying to anyone break the law.
Of course not.
What I am saying is in your judgment of things, let's at least pretend to have some kind of consistency in the message.
But, the real meat of the matter is even more contemporaneous.
Here's another category.
Because you see, people who break the law are just terrible, terrible people.
Just terrible people.
Obama.
President Obama says, Number one, it is absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric when it comes to the immigration debate, because there has been an undertone that has been ugly.
Oftentimes it has been directed at the Hispanic community.
We have seen hate crimes skyrocket in the wake of the immigration debate as it has been conducted in Washington, and that is unacceptable.
He also said, These are young people who studied in our schools.
They play in our neighborhoods.
They're friends with our kids.
They pledge allegiance to our flag.
They're American in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one on paper.
Yes, I'm talking about illegal immigration.
You see, apparently, when talking about the white ranchers in Argonne, The illegality of what they're doing is absolutely prime front and center.
By breaking the law, by picking up some keys and going into an unoccupied building, they should be gunned down from space.
Airstrikes should be called in.
Tactical nukes, I'm sure, are being next.
Suggested.
Because, you see, breaking the law is so unbelievably wrong that gunning people down is the right way to deal with it.
Ah, but you see, if people are illegal immigrants who are also breaking the law, and you could argue with a little bit less justification than two members of a family being sentenced to five years, each for putting out a fire, well, that's totally legitimate.
You see, it's an act of love to break the laws of America and come in illegally.
Hillary Clinton said...
Let's move toward what we should be doing as a nation and follow the values of our immigration history and begin to make it possible for them to come out of the shadows and have a future that gives them a full chance of citizenship.
You see, when illegal immigrants break the law, it's an act of love.
We should care about them, have compassion for them, understand that we just want to make them honest citizens and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You see, but when white branches break the law, they're terrorists.
Mwah!
Right.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, quote, Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner, but they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.
Heavens!
Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language.
Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.
See, that's the kind of discretion that has a judge say, listen, there was a fire that caused less than $100 of damage and actually improved the value of the BLM land, so we're not going to put you in jail for five years minimum mandatory sentence.
That's the kind of consideration.
Oh, no!
See, apparently that doesn't count here.
Jeb Bush, quote, The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn't come legally.
They come to our country because their families, the dad who loved their children, was worried that their children didn't have food on the table.
They wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work, to be able to provide for their family.
Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony.
It's an act of love.
It's an act of commitment to your family.
I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime, that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn't rile people up, that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.
See, it's important to keep families together, and if you have to break the law to do so, well, that's an act of love.
Ah, but you see, when the Hammonds want to keep their family together, and remember, the younger Hammond is a father of three, well, see, that's just terrorism.
Anybody who wants to help them out, anybody who's protesting that.
So provide for their family.
These are two, I mean, I think on a ranch you basically work until four days after you're dead.
So the grandfather was an able hand as well.
These are two people who are working on the land.
They're providing for their family.
So why is it so bad to break the law, to maintain family, to keep income together as an act of love?
When white people do it, but when illegal immigrants do it, it's wonderful.
It's terrible for whites.
Wonderful for immigrants.
When you break the law and you're a white rancher, terrorist.
When you break the law and you're an immigrant who's going to go on welfare and vote for Democrats, the Democrats seem to love you.
Love you to death.
Almost culturally, literally.
Bernie Sanders, it is time for this injustice to end.
We cannot and should not sweep up millions of men, women and children, many of whom lived here for many years, contribute to our society and are integrated into the fabric of American life, and throw them out of the country unjustly.
Lastly, it is categorically unacceptable that so many voters, I'm sorry, I misread that, not really, so many voices insisted that the large numbers of desperate, vulnerable and unaccompanied children, primarily from Central America who crossed our borders last year, should be turned away and sent back to the countries they fled. should be turned away and sent back to the countries Well, coming to a new country, breaking the law to come to a new country, Well, breaking the law to attempt to establish ownership over something that you've had for hundreds of years.
I'll let you mull that one over.
See, the left has, I guess, this double standard, to put it mildly, right?
Neither BLM can ever be in the wrong.
That would be Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter.
Neither can be in the wrong.
And also when the government, when police act in some way that is negative towards blacks or blacks object to, everybody dives in and says, well, the government can't be right.
I mean, we're going to be completely skeptical and hostile towards the government's narrative when blacks are complaining.
When white people are complaining, we're going to swallow the government narrative hook, line, and sinker and just stand with the government against the whites.
So stand with the blacks against the government.
Stand with the government against the whites.
I think you may be charged with a little bit of hypocrisy, possibly even a little bit more.
So...
Somebody else who broke the law was one young lady named Rosa Parks, who decided not to sit in the back of the bus, as the government demanded that she should.
It was not the bus company who wanted blacks to sit in the back of the bus.
It was a government law, government rule, a government edict that put black people in the back of the bus.
And she decided to sit not at the back of the bus, but in the front.
She broke the law.
Was she a terrorist?
Of course not.
She was acting to bring attention to an unjust law that unfairly targeted blacks.
Was she a terrorist?
Should she have gone to five years in prison?
Would the media have championed such an action?
It seems somewhat unlikely.
See, leftists standing up for themselves, workers, black people standing up for themselves, perfectly legitimate.
White people standing up for themselves, oh, that's terrorism.
That's a double standard.
And if you hold that standard, I don't know much about you.
I don't know how old you are.
I don't know where you're from.
I have some idea of your political beliefs.
I don't know whether you're male or female, tall or short.
Hairy or bald, but if you hold this double standard, there's one thing I do know about you.
