EspressoBuzz

I guess we will never know how the occupation of the wildlife refuge would have turned out had they decided to air their grievances out in an un-armed sit in of the refuge. Would they have gotten a more even handed treatment in the media and more importantly would more people nationwide have listened instead of dismissing them as violent nutjobs. Oregon standoff ends after 41 days with dramatic surrenderhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-militia-idUSKCN0VK05F

No one is calling anyone evil. Certainly not the farmers who didn't have MODERN science helping them conserve land and water during the great dust bowl. I don't think you're suggesting we should not learn from that experience or that we should forget all about it. However, if you look historically at how land abuse has occurred in the past and by whom the TRUTH comes out. And BTW the States don't want the land that the militia wants transferred to them from the feds and it's too expensive for many ranchers to purchase. Thanks to lobbying by cattlemen grazing fees are less expensive than on private lands. The truth is there if you look for it but expecting the truth from mineral extraction companies is questionable.

Congress may pass bills by simple majority votes. If the president vetoes a bill, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds supermajority of both houses. Constitutional amendments require a supermajority.

The Koch Brothers Are Now Funding The Bundy Land Seizure Agenda http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/11/3748602/koch-brothers-funding-bundy-agenda/ https://www.rawstory.com/2016/02/koch-backed-lobbying-group-is-spreading-ammon-bundys-lies-misspellings-and-all/ http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/02/oregon-takeover-update-plot-thickens/ BLM also controls mineral extraction and fees.

Blah Blah Blah off topic as usual when you've nothing to fuel your side of the discussion. If you don't realize the damage ranchers can do just look it up, see how between the ranching and the farming practices early in the 1900's cause the great dust bowl.

Copy and paste works instead of typing and I was done with the "conspiracy" concerning the death of LeVoy. I could not sit by and watch the truth distorted and bent.

http://www.physics.org/cheersphysics/

Thanks! I meant to say it's majority rules in both houses of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html Why the Government Owns So Much Land in the WestBy QUOCTRUNG BUI and MARGOT SANGER-KATZ JAN. 5, 2016 Federal AgencyBureau Of Land Management National Park Service Forest Service Fish and Wildlife The United States government owns 47 percent of all land in the West. In some states, including Oregon, Utah and Nevada, the majority of land is owned by the federal government. Of course, it used to own nearly all of it. And that remaining ownership and management of large tracts of forest and grazing lands is the core of the problem for antigovernment protesters in Oregon. They have taken over a federal building, the latest in a long history of fights between the government and Western settlers about how the lands should be used. How did the federal government get the land?The history of federal land ownership has been largely one of divestiture and public use, not acquisition. As the United States expanded across the continent, it did so by purchasing or taking the land that became new states. (Among the groups it took land from were Native Americans.) Over time, it transferred land to state governments and individuals, largely through homesteading and land grants, which allowed farmers to procure parcels of land for agricultural use. The government also tended to allow free use of unclaimed lands by ranchers and others, though there were skirmishes over the years when settlers tried to fence in public land or claimed land in Indian territories. That strategy worked well in the Midwest, where very little land remains in federal hands. East of the Mississippi, for example, the federal government owns only 4 percent of land. But in the 11 states in the West (including New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana, and not counting Alaska), a combination of geography and politics slowed things down. “The whole disposal system sort of hits a speed bump,” said Patricia Limerick, a history professor and director of the Center of the American West at the University of Colorado. The many mountainous, arid and difficult-to-reach tracts of land in the West simply weren’t attractive to farmers. Settlers claimed the few valleys where farming was feasible and built towns. The only thing most of the remaining land was good for was grazing, but cattle ranchers and sheep herders needed large tracts of land to feed their livestock, not the smaller parcels they could claim through homestead policies. More recently, federal law eliminated homesteading and set up more formal systems for management of the remaining land. Continue reading the main story Which Federal Agency Controls the Most Land?In Millions of Acres Source: Congressional Research ServiceIsn’t the government protecting that land?As conservation became a more important public policy goal, and politicians became concerned about substantial corruption involved in earlier land sales, efforts to hand over large tracts of federal land slowed. Some land was set aside for parks, wilderness and conservation. Much of the 247 million acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management is available for leases to ranchers seeking grass for their cattle and to companies that extract minerals or oil. The Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, where Ammon Bundy and his supporters have occupied a building this week, is set aside as conservation land, where no development can take place. The federal land in Nevada that was central toCliven Bundy’s 2014 dispute with federal officials was available for grazing to cattlemen willing to pay a lease fee, but with restrictions meant to protect the endangered desert tortoise. Why are there cattle grazing on it? In the early 1900s, cattle farming became a speculative boom because farmers realized that the federal government was basically giving away a valuable free commodity: grass. This quickly became a problem that economists call the “tragedy of the commons.” Everyone was allowed to let cattle graze the millions of acres of public grass. Ranchers, local officials and lawmakers got together and created a law called the Taylor Grazing Act, which effectively created a federal body called the Division of Grazing to manage the grazing of these lands. So, why the anger? Grumbling about federal control of local lands is nothing new. But research from the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service suggests that the federal government is a decent, if inflexible, landlord. Compared with private owners, it tends to charge lower rents for grazing and mining permits.Some of the land could be sold to individuals, and some has been — the government has sold hundreds of thousands of acres in the last 25 years. But that probably won’t help the protesters. “The ranchers couldn’t afford to buy these lands anyway,” said John Freemuth, a professor of public policy at Boise State University, who studies land-use policy. In recent years, Congress has considered legislation to transfer ownership of public lands from federal hands into state control. Advocates say that state ownership would be more responsive to the preferences of the people who wish to use the land. But studies have established that there would be substantial administrative costs for states if they took over. And the federal government transfers a lot of its leasing revenue back to states to compensate for the taxes the states might have collected if the land were in private hands. If they owned the land, the states would have to collect rents and administer permits themselves. An economic study from Utah in 2012 found that taking over land management would cost the state government a substantial sum: $275 million a year. It may turn out that if the states own it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for a different set of reasons.

And here in lies the problem. WE are the government and the government is US. The CONSTITUTION which is the basis of our government begins: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. We the PEOPLE. Your statement that the "Government didn't give them freedom. The people did." is simply a dumb attempt at distraction. We are a country of majority rule and if you are not in the majority you have FREE SPEECH to try and convince others of your point of view. When you threaten violence because of a law the majority has enacted you are either a sore loser, a terrorist or both. ter·ror·ist ˈterərəst/ noun a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. synonyms: extremist, fanatic; revolutionary, radical, insurgent, guerrilla, anarchist,freedom fighter; bomber, gunman, assassin, hijacker, arsonist, incendiary

Tell ya what I will remember. America is GREAT! It has always been and if we adhere to the RULE OF LAW that our GREAT nation was based on we will continue to be GREAT. LAWS and a system of laws that ALL immigrants who came to America from other less than great systems of government agree is better than most of the world's system of laws. While not perfect we have many means of challenging our laws and refining them to make them better and more just. Yes, I will remember that Cliven Bundy broke the laws of our country was tried and convicted, then created a situation where armed men threatened violence against FEDERAL officers, and when he thought he had gotten away with it, he didn't. "Federal courts have consistently ruled against Bundy, finding that he is a trespasser with no right to graze on federal land and authorizing the BLM to remove his cattle and levy damages for unauthorized use." - http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/1998-U-S-Dist-LEXIS-23835 Anyone who thinks this hasn't happened before should look up the "Whiskey Rebellion" and see how America has dealt historically with people who believe themselves above the law or chooses to not recognize the government that gave them the freedom and opportunity in the first place.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/11/nevada-rancher-cliven-bundy-arrested-by-fbi-in-portland.html Apparently the law has a long arm and longer memory. He was still wanted by the feds for his refusal to pay ONE MILLION DOLLARS (Pinky finger touching corner of mouth ala Dr Evil) in grazing fees and trespassing fines. They will probably add the charges of interfering with with federal agents when he called (repeatedly) for the wildlife refuge occupying militia to not give up after his son asked then to surrender.

Again incorrect, FACTS. They were sentenced for less than the 5 years required by the law and the federal prosecutor then filed a case against the court saying they did not uphold the law and won. The LAW is not a domestic terrorism law, it was added to a bill, like so many other changes to laws, in a Domestic Terrorism bill passed after the McVey bombing. The 5 year mandatory sentence is required in all arson convictions involving federal land regardless of if domestic terrorism was involved. Here is the law, please check it, it doesn't say you have to be a terrorist you just have to be an arson. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ132/html/PLAW-104publ132.htm SEC. 708. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR ARSON CRIMES. (a) In General.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (e), by striking ``five'' and inserting ``10''; (2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows: ``(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both. ``(2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes personal injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both. ``(3) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct directly or proximately causes the death of any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be subject to the death penalty, or imprisoned for not less than 20 years or for life, fined under this title, or both.''; (3) in subsection (h)-- (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``5 years but not more than 15 years'' and inserting ``10 years''; and ( in the second sentence, by striking ``10 years but not more than 25 years'' and inserting ``20 years''; and (4) in subsection (i)-- (A) by striking ``not more than 20 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title''; and ( by striking ``not more than 40 years, fined the greater of a fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,'' and inserting ``not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title''. ( Conforming Amendment.--Section 81 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``fined under this title or [[Page 110 STAT. 1297]] imprisoned not more than five years, or both'' and inserting ``imprisoned for not more than 25 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed, or both''. © Statute of Limitation for Arson Offenses.-- (1) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Facts! Knowing is half the battle!

Western Livestock Journal isn't the Washington Post, CNN, The NY Times or Fox News and perhaps a bit partial. "Three years ago, after a two-week trial in Pendleton, Oregon, a jury found 70-year old Dwight and his son, 43-year old Steven Hammond, guilty of committing arson on public lands in 2001. Steven Hammond was also found guilty of committing a second arson in 2006. They were found not guilty of other arson charges, and while the jury was deliberating on the remaining charges, the Hammonds negotiated for the dismissal of those charges and a promise from the U.S. Attorney to recommend the minimum sentence mandated by law. The Hammonds assured the trial judge that they knew the law required they serve no less than five years in prison." As I said Arson. Cause Fact Lives Matter. http://kval.com/news/local/background-us-attorney-issued-press-releases-on-hammond-case-in-october-december http://katu.com/news/local/criminal-history-of-the-hammond-familys-arson-conviction https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2660399/Statement-USattorney.pdf

No, the Hammonds were sentenced for ARSON which under law passed after the McVey bombing carries a mandatory 5 year sentence if it involves any federal property. The fire break fire they set directly endangered firefighters in the area AND they were told not to set that fire and did so anyway. Another fire they set to cover up the slaughter of a herd of deer. They have also had other minor run ins with the local BLM officials. FACTS! It's what's for dinner! Go ahead fact check me!

At the three min mark this video i posted earlier shows an interview with one of militiamen who was arrested in the same pinch that LaVoy Finicum was killed in. He flat out says the girl Cox is wrong. They generally don't release video at all but the danger of Levoy Finicum becoming a martyr and controversy over the hand up issue forced their hand I suppose. But here again people would rather believe that there is a conspiracy in spite of the fact he said he wouldn't be taken alive, tried to run a road block, nearly ran over a FBI agent. I'm done with this subject, if people don't realize how differently they have been handled from any other group that would have done the same thing then I'm sure those people are part of the problem and have no solution to offer.

Armed militants take over a federal building, why should where make a difference? People were still kept from work, everything is the same as other occupy protest EXCEPT these people came armed and threatened violence. Let me say again, THREATENED VIOLENCE from the beginning, so why the kid gloves? I'm not saying they should have stormed the place or anything like that but to not create a perimeter and then allow women and children to enter and others to come and go as they pleased just goes against every law enforcement principle I have seen before. Oh! and the building wasn't unoccupied as in a unused building, they were off for the New Years Eve Holiday, It would have been occupied if they came one day later.

The Constitution is NOT anti-government. This is a common thread among the anti-government people. In truth it is a pro balanced government. How can a document that outlines the operation and conduct of a government be anti-government? This reagan-esq notion that the private sector can do things better than the government can is total BS, both are EQUALLY ADEPT at doing things wrong and correct. The difference is the private sector is motivated by profit and the gov't on behalf of the people. Where is the support for the constitution when 51 percent of the people want something and the other side can't accept that? Here is one for you, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Including grazing fees which Clive Bundy and their supposed Constitution supporters say they do not recognize. Do you really believe this is anything more than money and fife-dom motivated?

I didn't defend them. READ CAREFULLY I stated it was an unfair comparison. Ferguson and Baltimore are unfair comparisons for a whole list of things not the least of which is the reasons. It is fairer to compare it to the OJ riots since both are cause by verdict not accepted by a group. With Blacks in LA it was OJ in Oregon it was the sentencing of the ranchers. Either way I don't agree with the violence or destruction of property. Yes I am biased, I don't believe those ranchers occupying are patriots at all. I see them as expressing the worse selfish parts of our society where they deem themselves as the only ones capable of land stewardship and governing. Every time people are left unsupervised the worst happens (please don't make me list em). Frankly I am tired of those who wrap themselves in the American Flag and say they support the Constitution while hating the Gov't.

Given who's facts? These ranches were saved during the great depression by selling their land to the federal gov't. No one forced them to sell except for perhaps the old farming and ranching practices that CAUSED the dust bowls of that time. Still I suppose you're right when you own 16000 to 20000 acres it hard not to imagine yourself a King and refuse the intervention of hundreds of scientist and conservationists who mange, care for and protect the land adjacent to your land. Which is leased for lower prices than any other country allows and allow to be grazed barren. Set fires near firefighters when warned not to, threaten hunters on federal land, park farm machinery so as to block federal work and allow cattle to water at a wildlife refuge. What's next? There is a reason why federal land is federal land and has rules for its use. I need to ask are you basing your opinion on the areas history and the facts?

Only the White Right can take over a federal building with weapons and threaten violence and not be approached or even surrounded for 3 weeks and you honestly want to equate it with rock throwing and Wall Street protesters who were liberally seasoned with pepper spray while peacefully being handcuffed?? Burning federal land, putting hunter hikers and firemen at danger don't register huh? DOMESTIC TERRORISM but no blip on your radar.

Agreed, it's not so simple and lets not derail this thread.....except I don't see why you blamed Obama for something you yourself said isn't so "simple" but you simply blamed him for....

Maybe because a pistol is considered a short distance defensive weapon and a rifle (in a car) is seen as a long distance offensive weapon. Remember the beltway sniper attacks years back? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks)

3 years ban and $10,000 seems like the right amount of deterrent to the average hunter who would never think of doing such a thing, BUT relative to how much this person earns it may be very little.

You ARE an artist!!