JMHO Loc: Utah

The “No Go” zones now travel two ways: law enforcement avoiding gang-controlled city blocks where their lives have been threatened, and private landowners being locked out of public and permitted land use. The question is… on which side of the equation does the individual stand?

In the aftermath of r**ting and protests in Ferguson, MO, Baltimore, MD, Chicago, IL and numerous sympathy demonstrations across the nation, cities are plagued with rising levels of violent crime. Groups siding with the Black L***s M****r movement that arose out of false testimonies and allegations against law enforcement, painting police as commonly hostile to minorities, have t***sformed urban neighborhoods into “No Go” zones.

The term was first used in Europe to tag Muslim immigrant communities as too dangerous for national and municipal law enforcement to enter. As a result, these districts soon became off-limits to receiving police assistance as any officer’s life was threatened if they entered the virtually barricaded neighborhoods. These are neighborhoods operating under their own form of justice that is contrary to that country’s laws.

Now, in America, the same phenomenon has occurred, only the communities suffer under the thumb of gang “justice,” which amounts to criminally controlled coercion of residents.

In both instances, law enforcement officers are targeted as enemies to the communities’ “new” hierarchy, which counters the law of the city, county or even country. In the United States these “No Go” zones are being overrun with crime and when police officers come to the aid of a victim, they themselves are victimized and even targeted for murder. The #B*M crowd seem to be getting their wish—independence to live in brutal anarchy.

The other side of the B*M coin is the government agency (Bureau of Land Management). However, to the B*M can be added numerous state and federal bureaucracies known by their alphabet titles—EPA, F&W, USFS, USDA, IRS, etc. And every one of them has regularly employed strong-arm tactics to divest individuals of their wealth, land and livelihood. Much to government and media chagrin, the confrontation in southeast Oregon’s Harney County is a harbinger of citizens becoming more vocal and active in invoking their inalienable rights. No matter where one stands on the involvement of Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the fact is that they are the ones who made this egregious miscarriage of justice front page news. Before their investigating and stepping in, very few knew of the Hammond family railroading or how such engineered legal action furthers government assaults on private land ownership.

Story after story has since been filed where only one side of the facts have seen print or video, the details of the whole Hammond “arson” tale set aside in favor of building demon status for individuals protesting while wearing firearms in an open-carry state.

Malheur Wildlife Refuge standoff

Facts can be inconvenient for media insistent on spinning their own yarn—one that news editors think is more apt to grab attention, and depicting ranchers as black hats is high on their list. Though, to be frank, it’s an odd choice of character casting to take the very people who feed the nation (including media and government types) and criminalizing food production. But then, perhaps all those camera-ready anchors don’t really need to eat, keeping their svelte figures of paramount importance.

The real story is not yesterday’s archived broadcast or the one now lining a birdcage. There are those who actually did their homework before writing or producing their stories. Carrie Stadheim, managing editor of the Tri-State Livestock News was diligent with her story, “Where there’s smoke.” For another detailed chronicling of events that led to Dwight and Steven Hammond being branded “terrorists” for using proper methods to protect private range from invasive species and lightning fires, read this account. Be prepared, however, to be appalled in reading and watching video of eyewitness accounts of B*M terror tactics (here, the term applies) to oust ranchers who have stewarded the land with care and wisdom for generations.

What must be noted in this Malheur Wildlife Refuge standoff, as media has it tagged, is that, as in every situation where the feds are involved, the landowner is saddled with fines and the government agencies are never held accountable for the destruction they incur by irresponsible action. Example: The EPA mine fiasco in Colorado that turned the Animas River putrid with toxic orange minerals. In the Hammond’s circumstance, they were held liable for $400,000 damage to the refuge for burning less than 140 acres that saved the grassland on and off refuge. How the U.S. attorney determined that setting these backfires constituted terrorism when applying the USC Title 18 definition under which she charged them:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—


to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (emphasis, mine)

After familiarizing oneself with the facts, it is a beyond-the-pale stretch of the imagination to tag the Hammonds terrorists. Unfortunately, common sense held no sway with a U.S. attorney whose lack of judgment became evident in her stalking a former colleague. However, the justice system is riddled with feckless federal bureaucrats bent on depicting farmers, ranchers and entrepreneurs as right-wing extremists (likely based on this 2009 DHS assessment which I covered then1) when their actions are wholly instigated to preserve the land, not block usage of it. And the usage includes the wildlife the refuge was intended (or was it?) to protect, in that Fish and Wildlife saw fit to destroy water holes that has forced fowl to flock to water on private land, where they compete with the livestock—and the ranchers’ livelihood. Planning makes perfect in the world of government land management… perfect in forcing private landholders out at firesale prices. (Pun intended.)

Many in Harney County appear to be urging the Bundys and company to vacate the otherwise empty visitor center at MWR, where they are doing no real harm, unlike liberal teachers’ unions who trashed the Wisconsin state capitol for unearned raises in 2011.2 Should the sheriff decide to take on the federal government’s fight and oust the squatters at gunpoint, there will be unnecessary violence over what is truly a people’s land rights issue. It must be remembered that the refuge is public land, which, by definition, means it belongs to the People, not the government. There are no real grounds for stamping the campers as trespassers, nor for forcing them out of an otherwise closed and vacant building except to rattle spears and make a show of force. Were anyone to look at this situation from an economic standpoint, they’d have to concede that the Bundys’ entourage has brought a business boom to Harney County during otherwise dry winter months.

The point being made by all this brouhaha is that the landowner is being forced to close up shop and sell to the first buyer in line—the government. There are administrative avenues that must be exhausted by those landowners victimized by government officials in this and numerous other instances3 before law enforcement flexes muscle as front men for illegitimate federal claims.4 Although nothing for or against the Malheur Wildlife Refuge building camp-out will be stated here, the dilemma of true stewards of the land (farmers, ranchers, lumbermen, etc.) has been given headlines due to a few willing to step outside of their comfort zone.

Whether it’s mob rule like the Black L***s M****r crowd or it’s government clamping down on public land use, either way, human and property rights are being stripped by unlawful force, though both are politically based.

http://canadafreepress.com/article/78034?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=ac02086717-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-ac02086717-297717381

Kevyn

This is one of the stupidest analogies you have ever posted, and that is saying a lot. People are not allowed to go onto public land and set it on fire or to stage armed takeovers of public and government owned buildings. This hardly makes these places some sort of no go zones. There are parks and public schools in most parts of the country. Although they are public lands, as an individual I can't walk into a classroom and set furniture on fire or build a house on the local playground. There are specific uses for this public property decided by our elected government. To suggest that a group of armed i***ts are patriots for taking over these property's and using them as they wish is beyond reason, they are nothing but criminal arsonists and burglars. The people who support this criminality are not supporting freedom, they are supporting anarchy.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Blah, blah, blah...get out of the big city some time, moron. Try visiting and exploring out in the west sometime, moron. As usual, you're clueless.

angery american Loc: Georgia

Did you ever expect an intelligent answer from our resident q***r...?

TunTav75

One can certainly understand and appreciate the horrible circumstances the Ranchers are faced with at the hands of B*M and i***tic government rules. However, taking over public property and engaging in an armed stand-off with Law Enforcement only feeds into the narrative of the media and far-left. They will hardly call these actions patriotic or justified. They will point at this and say, see how dangerous right-wing, 2nd Amendment, Conservative nuts are. Are we not opposed to the tactics of B*M, Occupy Wall Street and the "Hands up don't shoot" crowds. Can we justify the tactics of the Ranchers and their supporters simply because we agree with their beliefs? I think most of us had fathers who said.... "Work smarter, not harder". I think we'll be working harder for credibility now because this tactic is not smart.

JMHO Loc: Utah

That's your opinion, and frankly it stinks. But, of course protesters like BlackLivesMatter, and Occupy America are okay with you lefties?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Nope, they are just as stupid, but I'm not a lefty either.

TunTav75

You're too funny JMHO. I'm the furthest from being a leftie as one can be. But, I do know that tactics and behavior will shape public opinion. Poor tactics and extreme behavior only fuel the left's narrative and propaganda vomited out by the MSM. And that's the reality of it.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I've been pointing that out for a long time now but it goes in one ear and out the other.

JMHO Loc: Utah

You're a lefty, pal.

JMHO Loc: Utah

And, you're an i***t lefty.

TunTav75

Ba,ha,ha,ha.... you crack me up. You're turning out to be a fantastic source of comedic relief...... keep it up.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I am fully convinced you have some form of dementia.

JMHO Loc: Utah

No, I'm just not a complete moron like you, pal.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Yea, and you're funny too, pal...but, hey looks aren't everything...lefty.