Occupy Oregon: How Liberal Bigotry is Threatening Democracy
Jan 13, 2016 23:51:21 #
Liberals have chosen to oppose the ranchers who are fighting for their land rights in Oregon, and they are using every shaming tactic in the book. Their language is as bigoted and h**eful as they claim the Bundy's are. But what they don't understand is that their totalitarian ideology is being uplifted by the feds to push a deeply l*****t agenda where all land belongs to the government and property rights do not exist.
The t***h is that this is a conflict over land rights that have gone on for over a century. The Harney Basin valley where the Hammond's ranch exists was settled by ranchers in the late 1870s. More than 300,000 head of cattle was shared by this cowboy collective of homesteading families. Together, these families developed a state-of-the-art irrigation system to water the land and develop it for grazing. This also made the territory a favorite place for migrating birds to stop and take their rest on their long journeys north.
In 1908, Roosevelt created an Indian Reservation on the same property which surrounded the Malheur, Harney, and Mud lakes. He declared it a preserve and breeding ground for migrating birds. It became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
In 1964, the Hammond's were forced to purchase 6000 acres of the land that their ancestors had settled three-quarters of a century before. They paid for grazing rights, water rights, and a ranch house which stands, for now, 53 miles south of the town of Burns.
By 1970, most of the nearby ranches were purchased by the federal government and added to the Malheur Refuge. The Hammonds had been approached by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) many times with offers to purchase their land, but they refused to sell.
Later that decade, the FWS and the Bureau of Land Management (B*M) took a different tack with the families of the Malheur Refuge. The ranchers were told that grazing was harmful to the wildlife and must be curtailed. The two agencies revoked 32 of 53 existing grazing permits and most of the ranchers, now impoverished, were forced to leave. Grazing rights fees were raised for the remaining families, and more soon began to leave. After this exodus, the FWS took over the irrigation system that had existed for generations and claimed it for their own.
By the 1980s, the FWS had become even more aggressive. They began to cut off water rights to the remaining families, intentionally diverting water away from the ranch lands. They flooded 31 ranches on the Silvies plains washing away homes, topsoil, barns, and corrals. By the late 80s, the lakes had doubled in size, drastically reducing the available grazing land. Most of the remaining ranchers had nothing left to hold onto. Totally destitute, they could no longer fight the FWS. They left and the feds swiftly moved in.
In 1990, the Hammonds were one of the very few remaining ranching families. They began to investigate independently and discovered that the FWS has a No Use policy regarding the lands the Hammonds and their neighbors lived on. It was the beginning of the end of their faith in the system that had long since been waging war against them. Susie Hammond found a federal study which showed that migratory birds were more attracted to privately owned lands than they were to federally owned reserve territory.
Since then, the aggression, legal action and outright cruelty toward these struggling families has gone on unabated, and totally under the radar of public awareness. The media has rarely spoken of the plights of these hard working Americans until a group of them staged a peaceful takeover of an FWS building.
What the media does not tell you is that fewer than half of the protesters are actually armed. The few photos we've seen of armed cowboys at the federal building were a poor sample of a group of people who almost always have hunting rifles with them in order to defend cattle from predators.
But the liberal spasm that has childishly labeled this group "Yall Quaeda is almost begging to have its ignorance enshrined in law. Reactionary Twitter users have made headlines calling for the extermination of these people who are laying claim only to the rights of their friends and neighbors to use the land that they rightfully own- and to make their livings in the only way they know how.
The national tone is a sad testimony to the ignorance of the public to the history and origins of the westernmost states. Worst of all, the totalitarian shrieks which have received the most applause scoff at the Oregon occupiers and portray them as the historical oppressors of the Native Americans. The fact is that it was the federal government who starved and slaughtered the Natives, and they are now doing the same thing to these ranchers.
The real lesson of this story won't come from those who mock the protesters by comparing them to characters from Cold Mountain. The real lesson here is that it isn't about skin color versus skin color, it's about the needs of the weak versus the greed of the strong- and are winning again- this time with the approval of political Left.
God, help America
The t***h is that this is a conflict over land rights that have gone on for over a century. The Harney Basin valley where the Hammond's ranch exists was settled by ranchers in the late 1870s. More than 300,000 head of cattle was shared by this cowboy collective of homesteading families. Together, these families developed a state-of-the-art irrigation system to water the land and develop it for grazing. This also made the territory a favorite place for migrating birds to stop and take their rest on their long journeys north.
In 1908, Roosevelt created an Indian Reservation on the same property which surrounded the Malheur, Harney, and Mud lakes. He declared it a preserve and breeding ground for migrating birds. It became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
In 1964, the Hammond's were forced to purchase 6000 acres of the land that their ancestors had settled three-quarters of a century before. They paid for grazing rights, water rights, and a ranch house which stands, for now, 53 miles south of the town of Burns.
By 1970, most of the nearby ranches were purchased by the federal government and added to the Malheur Refuge. The Hammonds had been approached by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) many times with offers to purchase their land, but they refused to sell.
Later that decade, the FWS and the Bureau of Land Management (B*M) took a different tack with the families of the Malheur Refuge. The ranchers were told that grazing was harmful to the wildlife and must be curtailed. The two agencies revoked 32 of 53 existing grazing permits and most of the ranchers, now impoverished, were forced to leave. Grazing rights fees were raised for the remaining families, and more soon began to leave. After this exodus, the FWS took over the irrigation system that had existed for generations and claimed it for their own.
By the 1980s, the FWS had become even more aggressive. They began to cut off water rights to the remaining families, intentionally diverting water away from the ranch lands. They flooded 31 ranches on the Silvies plains washing away homes, topsoil, barns, and corrals. By the late 80s, the lakes had doubled in size, drastically reducing the available grazing land. Most of the remaining ranchers had nothing left to hold onto. Totally destitute, they could no longer fight the FWS. They left and the feds swiftly moved in.
In 1990, the Hammonds were one of the very few remaining ranching families. They began to investigate independently and discovered that the FWS has a No Use policy regarding the lands the Hammonds and their neighbors lived on. It was the beginning of the end of their faith in the system that had long since been waging war against them. Susie Hammond found a federal study which showed that migratory birds were more attracted to privately owned lands than they were to federally owned reserve territory.
Since then, the aggression, legal action and outright cruelty toward these struggling families has gone on unabated, and totally under the radar of public awareness. The media has rarely spoken of the plights of these hard working Americans until a group of them staged a peaceful takeover of an FWS building.
What the media does not tell you is that fewer than half of the protesters are actually armed. The few photos we've seen of armed cowboys at the federal building were a poor sample of a group of people who almost always have hunting rifles with them in order to defend cattle from predators.
But the liberal spasm that has childishly labeled this group "Yall Quaeda is almost begging to have its ignorance enshrined in law. Reactionary Twitter users have made headlines calling for the extermination of these people who are laying claim only to the rights of their friends and neighbors to use the land that they rightfully own- and to make their livings in the only way they know how.
The national tone is a sad testimony to the ignorance of the public to the history and origins of the westernmost states. Worst of all, the totalitarian shrieks which have received the most applause scoff at the Oregon occupiers and portray them as the historical oppressors of the Native Americans. The fact is that it was the federal government who starved and slaughtered the Natives, and they are now doing the same thing to these ranchers.
The real lesson of this story won't come from those who mock the protesters by comparing them to characters from Cold Mountain. The real lesson here is that it isn't about skin color versus skin color, it's about the needs of the weak versus the greed of the strong- and are winning again- this time with the approval of political Left.
God, help America
Jan 13, 2016 23:57:24 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Liberals have chosen to oppose the ranchers who ar... (show quote)
Funny. It is not liberals; it is the Constitution. If endorsing the Constitution is liberal, then I am a patriot
Jan 14, 2016 00:27:26 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Liberals have chosen to oppose the ranchers who ar... (show quote)
Yes them damned i***t Liberals LOVE the corruption...any crime will do!
Jan 14, 2016 00:30:22 #
fiatlux wrote:
Funny. It is not liberals; it is the Constitution. If endorsing the Constitution is liberal, then I am a patriot
To support the Constitution, would include standing against the unconstitutional over reach of the government and supporting the ideals of these ranchers.
However todays liberals (l*****t ) are not constitutionalist instead believe the Constitution is outdated, as well as twisting the meaning and wording, as well as the founding fathers intentions into a pretzel as nobody else can.
I don't agree with all the methods these ranchers are facilitating or several of the mental that have joined their fight for justice. Their actions ring t***h and accuracy to the intent of the II Amendment and the final step against a tyrannical government.
Jan 14, 2016 00:37:39 #
fiatlux wrote:
Funny. It is not liberals; it is the Constitution. If endorsing the Constitution is liberal, then I am a patriot
Where in the 'constitution' does it give the government the right to drive people off land that they own? How would you feel if the government shut off your water supply and drove you off your property? Would you be entirely OK with that, or would you be a little pissed?
Please quote the section of the constitution that gives the government the right to do what they have been doing in Oregon.
Jan 14, 2016 01:36:31 #
fiatlux wrote:
Funny. It is not liberals; it is the Constitution. If endorsing the Constitution is liberal, then I am a patriot
Using the Constitution to excuse the massive grabbing of land,land usage rights, water rights, mineral rights and the persecution of our precious ranchers and farmers by UNELECTED BUREAUCRATIC PIPSQUEAKS...BY AGENCIES THAT WEREN'T EVEN DREAMED OF WHEN SAID CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN has created a mess. It's not right. States and counties need more say so out here than the goddam feds and that is the crux of the problem. People who have lived out here for generations are tired of fucking pencil pushers pushing them!
Nope...this has been coming a long time now. Almost a hundred years.
Jan 14, 2016 01:39:58 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
To support the Constitution, would include standi... (show quote)
Wacko. You have no salient arguments and laying this at the feet of liberals is asinine.
Jan 14, 2016 04:35:16 #
fiatlux wrote:
Wacko. You have no salient arguments and laying this at the feet of liberals is asinine.
Ok, Helen Keller....deaf, dumb, and blind.
That says it all!!!!
Jan 14, 2016 04:38:57 #
America Only wrote:
Yes them damned i***t Liberals LOVE the corruption...any crime will do!
You nailed it! One need only read responses from l*****t on this post to confirm your most accurate reply.
Jan 14, 2016 04:42:53 #
fiatlux wrote:
Wacko. You have no salient arguments and laying this at the feet of liberals is asinine.
Read up on Agenda 21 a liberal "unconstitutional " agenda. Your the very mind set destroying America's liberties.
Jan 14, 2016 07:27:59 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Liberals have chosen to oppose the ranchers who ar... (show quote)
Liberals are threatening Democracy? And here I thought we were a Republic...
Jan 14, 2016 07:57:23 #
PeterS wrote:
Liberals are threatening Democracy? And here I thought we were a Republic...
Peter, you do realize your quote that appears with your reply, is nonsensical since it applies to majority of our founding fathers.
What we see the last 7 years including all branches of government, all parties included looks more like a democracy than a republic. Sadly...
Jan 14, 2016 10:17:49 #
EconomistDon wrote:
Where in the 'constitution' does it give the government the right to drive people off land that they own? How would you feel if the government shut off your water supply and drove you off your property? Would you be entirely OK with that, or would you be a little pissed?
Please quote the section of the constitution that gives the government the right to do what they have been doing in Oregon.
Please quote the section of the constitution that gives the government the right to do what they have been doing in Oregon.
She probly has Free Housing
Jan 14, 2016 10:18:30 #
jack sequim wa wrote:
Ok, Helen Keller....deaf, dumb, and blind.
That says it all!!!!
That says it all!!!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: good one
Jan 14, 2016 10:30:08 #
no propaganda please
Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun
EconomistDon wrote:
Where in the 'constitution' does it give the government the right to drive people off land that they own? How would you feel if the government shut off your water supply and drove you off your property? Would you be entirely OK with that, or would you be a little pissed?
Please quote the section of the constitution that gives the government the right to do what they have been doing in Oregon.
Please quote the section of the constitution that gives the government the right to do what they have been doing in Oregon.
Thank you for saying that. I had thought the same thing, but you said it first, and well said, too.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.