Pizza And Assault Rifles: Inside The Occupied Oregon Wildlife Refuge

Tyler Durden's picture




 

When last we checked in on Ammon Bundy and his band of “patriots”, Harney County Sheriff David Ward was getting fed up with the group’s occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

“It is time for you to leave our community, go home to your families, and end this peacefully,” Ward said on Tuesday.

But Ammon Bundy and the handful of armed militiamen holed up at the remote, snowy federal outpost have no such plans. The “Citizens for Constitutional Freedom” (as they now call themselves) are in it for the long haul and have pledged, at various times since “seizing” the office last Saturday, to remain in the building “for years.”

While it’s not entirely clear what Bundy wants, the group’s professed goal is to “"restore the rights to people so they can use the land and resources.” Here’s a bit of helpful color from Terry Andersen, the William A. Dunn Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center and the John and Jean DeNault Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (from a New York Times op-ed):

Their goal harkens back the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the 1970s, though their tactics are more draconian. Then the rebels called for more local control of federal lands, if not outright transfer of title to those lands to the states, and such solutions are still worth considering.

 

The impetus for the Oregon occupation is the imprisonment of a father and son for setting fire to federal lands to control invasive species moving to private lands and to help prevent wildfires, a huge land management problem in the West.

 

Living in the mountains south of Bozeman, Mont., I feel their pain because every summer I fight spotted knapweed, an invasive plant spread from my national forest neighbors, and I fear that wildfire will spread from the unmanaged federal land.

 

The second cause is “multiple conflicts over multiple uses.” At the time of the Sagebrush Rebellion the list of multiple uses that federal land agencies were to manage was huge. It is growing exponentially.

 

Western ranchers, loggers, farmers and, yes, even government bureaucrats with their feet on the ground could provide the stewardship sought by the rebels in Oregon. Now that armed confrontation has brought attention to their cause, we need to consider policies that will devolve management to lower levels of government and get the incentives right for encouraging environmental and fiscal responsibility

And here's a bit more from Salon:

The Bundys have been up in arms about where their cattle can and can’t roam, and their father, Cliven, owes more than $1 million in grazing fees. And the Hammonds are being punished for setting fire to public land. If you live in some other part of the country—in, say, a bustling East Coast city—what do ranching restrictions and arson have to do with you? The short answer: The land use regulations that the occupiers of the Malheur Refuge are fighting go far beyond where cattle can roam. How we use our land determines what comes out of it in the form of extracted resources, which then affects so much else, from what kind of air we breathe to how many earthquakes we experience–not to mention our changing climate. It would not be a stretch to say that caring about land use means caring about the fate of our planet.

 

In his “Wilderness Letter,” Wallace Stegner wrote that we need to preserve wilderness “even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.” Wild lands, according to Stegner, are important “simply as an idea.” But land use is about much more than what land we preserve as wilderness, or even what land we set aside for recreation and enjoyment. While wilderness is indeed valuable, there is plenty of non-wilderness public land whose fate matters just as much.

 

The Sagebrush Rebels argue that this federal land should’ve belonged to the states to begin with, according to a clause under the Doctrine of the Equality of States, which says new states enter the union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” Several Western states were required to disclaim their sovereignty over unappropriated lands when they became states, and the Sagebrush Rebels have never gotten over it. This is why they continue to demand the “return” of federal land to the states—though that would necessitate the land once having belonged to the states, and it never really did.

Ok, so Bundy, like his father, has become something of a folk hero among states' rights advocates and he's essentially hijacked the Hammond brush fire case and transformed it into a justification for the armed occupation of a federal building. 

Of course it's probably occurred to Bundy - if not to every member of the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom - that the US government couldn't legislate its way out of a wet paper bag let alone fruitfully revisit a grand debate on land use and state's rights. That is, Washington is mired in partisan bickering that's created the worst Congressional gridlock in recent memory which means that even if someone cared to address Bundy's concerns, they couldn't. 

But Bundy is apparently ready to wait around in the woods until something happens. "There is a time to go home. We recognize that. We don't feel it's quite time yet," he said on Wednesday. "We feel like we need to make sure that the Hammonds are out of prison, or well on their way. We need to make sure that there is some teeth in these land transfers, and also that those who have committed crimes ... those are exposed as well."

In the meantime, Reuters got an inside look at life inside occupied bird sanctuary. Here are some excerpts from their account:

The doorknob rattled. Two of the men occupying a federal biologist's office in a stand-off over land rights hopped from their chairs and swung rifles toward the locked door.

 

There was no knock - the established procedure for gaining entry to the nerve center of the siege mounted by brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy at this eastern Oregon nature center.

 

The Bundys’ body guard stood in silent alert but heard no voices from the snowy darkness outside.

 

"Should we approach the door or not?" Ryan asked, creeping toward a window.

 

On Tuesday, for the first time, they allowed two reporters to join them inside their refuge for a night marked by long discussions and moments of hair-trigger tension.

 

As the two Reuters’ reporters arrived just after nightfall, the occupiers were moving into a state of high alert. The groups’ head of security, a man known as Buddha, had been out of touch since driving off-site hours earlier. Amid efforts to locate him, the Bundys talked at length about what had brought them into this wilderness--and what it would take for them to leave.

 

"When we can say, 'OK, now we can go home,' would be when the people of Harney County are secure enough and confident enough that they can continue to manage their own land and their own rights and resources without our aid, " Ryan Bundy said. "And we intend to turn this facility into a facility that will aid that process."

 

The brothers have taken over the cozy and cluttered office of Linda Sue Beck, a biologist and civil servant they have come to view as a symbol the federal government. They said they would allow Beck to come to gather her personal belongings. But they don’t want her to return to work.

 

“She’s not here working for the people,” declared Ryan Bundy, the more outspoken of the brothers. “She’s not benefitting America. She’s part of what’s destroying America.”

Yes, Linda is "part of what's destroying America." Behold, the face of government oppression:

And while we doubt that Linda will be stopping by to "gather her personal belongings," Bundy says the group is expecting visitors soon. On Tuesday Bundy said that based on information he received from an unnamed source, the FBI has obtained five arrest warrants, and is "gathering their equipment and their goons" at a local high school. "They were planning on coming in and raiding the refuge," he added. 

As Reuters goes on to note, there are times when the group questions themselves. “When is it enough to put yourself and other people’s lives on the line? Is it justified? Maybe in the end we’ll look at each other and say, ‘What are we doing?’” 

Yes, "maybe." But until then, many of the men suggest that if push comes to shove, they're prepared to die for Bundy and his cause. On that note, we'll close with a quote from Wes Kjar, a 31-year-old oil rig worker who's convinced the FBI is set to storm the building:

“I’m not saying I want to die. I want to surrender. But I want to surrender on the right terms.”

 

 

 

The full clip is below:

2.5
Your rating: None Average: 2.5 (10 votes)
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:12 | 7014044 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

I don't know that you'd say that if something good comes of what they are doing.  The problem is that they don't have any idea how many felonies the US Justice Dept. will end up charging them with.  They'll end up doing 10 years in prison for fear of doing 100 years.  That's how the Feds charge you.  They charge you with 100 felonies and so you cop to one or 2 so you don't have to spend the rest of your life in prison under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  I would also expect that some of the counts they will charge them with have a new violation every day, so you might have a violation of federal law, that is, a separate count, for every day you trespass on federal property---something like that.  These guys are courageous but naive and they believe the Federal government is bad.  I think it is too but I'm not going to prison over my belief and not when I have other people dependent on me.  

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:39 | 7014163 Kefeer
Kefeer's picture

I'm pretty sure they are well aware of this; I do not think they intend on leaving peacefully unless taken by surprise. 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:45 | 7014199 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Is it just me, or does going toe to toe with Uncle Sugar over the jurisdiction of the f'n BLM just seem a little nuts?  There's a ton of shit to be pissed-off about but this seems like it should be pretty far down the list.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:53 | 7014237 Duc888
Duc888's picture

 

 

"Is it just me, or does going toe to toe with Uncle Sugar over the jurisdiction of the f'n BLM just seem a little nuts?  There's a ton of shit to be pissed-off about but this seems like it should be pretty far down the list."

 

It's about States Rights....if you listen to the audio of the post above, you'd realize what their issue is.  I'll post it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yP6Zm2myw8

It's amazing that for so many people here on ZH that claim they believe in, or want to abide by the Constitition.... that they really don't.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:32 | 7014422 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

The bigger issue is how do you think you should respond if you disagree with a SCOTUS decision regarding the Const.

1. You can lobby for an amendment; or

2. You can engage in some form of civil disobedience.

Then the question is what level of disobedience do you want to take things to.

The Civil Rights Act got passed because most Americans were pretty appalled by images of segregation, fire hoses, beatings, etc.

I'll stand by my assessment that this act of rebellion/disobedience is not going to lead to much wide-spread solidarity among the population and may, in fact, hurt those who stand against federal overreach.

 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 20:38 | 7014728 cro_maat
cro_maat's picture

Do some research on the difference between Civil Rights and Constitutional rights and get back to me.

While you are at it research Common Law vs. Civil Law which is what the 3 headed monster (Vatican, City of London, USSA Corp.) impose on Americans.

You can keep your Civil Rights since you work for .GOV. I will stand by my unalienable rights given my by my Creator - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness which includes the right to be left alone and to use my property how I see fit so long as I don't harm another or their property.

Fri, 01/08/2016 - 00:51 | 7015661 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I'm pretty clear on what common law is.  I'm also pretty clear on the nature and limits of Constitutional law and its relationship to natural rights.  

And what the fuck gave you the idea I work for the fucking Govt, or was not interesting in maintaining everybody's natural rights?  

For example, I happen to think that Wickard v. Filburn is probably one of the worst SCOTUS decisions still on the books (granted the feds the right to assess penalties on a farmer growing crops for his own use in excess of federal guidelines promulgated under the interstate commerce clause.  This doesn't mean that I'm going to take over an ag extension building and expect to accomplish anything that helps my cause.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 20:25 | 7014650 Vlad the Inhaler
Vlad the Inhaler's picture

People only support states rights when it suits them.  The rest of the time they don't.  Gay marriage?  States rights!  Marijuana?  Bring in the Feds!

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 21:05 | 7014243 Duc888
Duc888's picture

 

 

sorry, dupe.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 17:46 | 7013889 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

I fear when all is said and done, the Bundys and others are going to get longer prison sentences than the Hammonds.  The almighty federal government is the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, just as Bundy said in a TV interview with that Megyn Kelly.  They don't have a chance.  And the New Federal Government of today sees us as beholden to them, not the other way around.  They don't know what "public servant" means.  They control us now, we don't control them anymore.  Kind of like Skynet in the Terminator movies........

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:08 | 7014022 besnook
besnook's picture

the problem is there are not enough americans who value their freedom(do they even know what that is?) enough to go to jail or die to make sure they have it.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:17 | 7014063 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

These Bundy people feel their liberty truly  is imperiled by the federal government.  We live in the city and don't---not yet anyway.  Wait until there are food shortages..........wait until they tax you at 90%...........wait until you are only allowed to watch certain "approved" TV shows..........wait until you have your doctor asking you what guns you have and why...........the takeover has been so creeping, none of us realize it.............we are all boiling frogs...........

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:37 | 7014154 Kefeer
Kefeer's picture

Freedom has always been the exalted illusion as a simply looking into a dictionary & applying it will prove; that is no one has ever possessed it.  All are enslaved as a cursory look at the definition will likewise show.  It is liberty that we have or do not have and those are diminishing and always does in direct correlation to a nations moral values or more a lack thereof.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:03 | 7014277 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

Imagine paying property taxes.  That has always burned me up.  You are essentially "renting" your house which is fully paid for.  And you're "renting" your car too or you aren't allowed to drive it.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 20:31 | 7014685 Kefeer
Kefeer's picture

Property taxes simply means you cannot own property.  I hate that tax probably more than any other.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 17:47 | 7013891 Vlad the Inhaler
Thu, 01/07/2016 - 17:56 | 7013955 Duc888
Duc888's picture

"Typical anti-gubmint free shitters."

Not really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yP6Zm2myw8

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 17:54 | 7013946 dchang0
dchang0's picture

Please don't call those "assault rifles." By definition, all assault rifles must be select-fire (can choose between semi-auto and full-auto/burst-fire).

We know for sure that the feds would never let any one of the occupiers possess a federally-illegal full-auto/burst-fire firearm and would use that as an excuse to firebomb the place a la Waco's Branch Davidian massacre. After the 1986 ban on machine guns, only rich collectors have been able to buy grandfathered full-auto/burst-fire firearms, and it is a virtual certainty none of the occupiers would own a legally-owned collectible machine gun costing over $10,000 each, nor would they be foolish enough to bring it to the protest.

(Also, the photos are clearly of semi-automatic-only firearms, but I'm covering all the bases to make sure we don't wrongly call any of those "assault rifles.")

 

They just barely qualify as "assault weapons," which are a gun-control-propaganda term legally defined by mere cosmetics (pistol grip, flash hider, folding stock, collapsible stock, and other things that affect the look and feel of the long gun but have nothing to do with its action). Oregon does not have an "assault weapons" ban anyway, so this term is moot and only buys further into the anti-gun propagandists' goals.

 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:11 | 7014040 skinwalker
skinwalker's picture

The term 'assault rifle' is a lot like the term 'patriarchy': never clearly defined, seldom glimpsed in the wild, but assumed to something of great power and malevolence. 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 17:57 | 7013953 blindman
blindman's picture

if this government cannot find a peaceful resolution in oregon today or tomorrow or the tomorrow of tomorrow then it is guilty of its own moral destruction. is this not clear? . who do they think will follow on the heels of this insane misapplication of might? only those they would despise themselves. . John Hiatt - Have a Little Faith in Me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aYxMuLb3h8 . peace and free the hammonds.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:09 | 7013976 Grandad Grumps
Grandad Grumps's picture

It does not look like these guys are going looking for people to shoot with assault rifles. If that is going to be done, then it will be from the real people who should be disarmed, the unconstitutional US government.

What I am finding more and more, reading multiple communications from a variety of sources is that they differentiate "humans" from something else. Even Jade Helm was to "Master the Human Domain". As opposed to what?

There are apparently people in NASA who do not consider themselves "human". NASA is concerned that humans are in control of the planet. Well, who else? Who exactly are they and why do they believe they own us? Same with those who wrote Black's Law Dictionary. There is a distinction between classes of beings.

What I can tell you though is that those who are doing all this shit are not really good at staging events. They stage a lot, but always for a TV audience ... and they are really bad at PhotoShop, because the doctored photos they use have mistakes most people would not make.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:22 | 7014362 restelle
restelle's picture

They are Reptilians.  Some are more so than others. 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:01 | 7013986 wisebastard
wisebastard's picture

I cant wait to eat that CARP..........man do those CARP taste so good............there is no way this is fake.............give it a few more minutes and it will turn into a porn shot

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:20 | 7014347 restelle
restelle's picture

Easy now... That carp is Wasserman Schultz's brother.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:04 | 7014003 wisebastard
wisebastard's picture

taking a wild life office is like a fat guy locking himself in a gym with a box of donuts ........is this a fucking joke

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:07 | 7014016 blindman
blindman's picture

john trudell - doesn't hurt anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcxaAcmxcdA

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:11 | 7014018 Mr.BlingBling
Mr.BlingBling's picture

I gave this article one star for the author's use of the propaganda pejorative "assault rifle." True assault rifles can be fired fully automatic.

EDITED TO ADD: Dchang0 said it up thread more eloquently than I.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:09 | 7014026 Ms No
Ms No's picture

I suppose it would be in poor taste to crack any jokes about that last guy that has been kicked in the face by at least a couple 1400lb hereford bulls.  That adds character.

 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:09 | 7014027 Galts Disciple
Galts Disciple's picture

"Behold, the face of government oppression" I've learned one thing from this article. The face of government oppression is a fat one. And so is the body.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:25 | 7014108 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

And a lot of them look like that too..........

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:38 | 7014150 Ms No
Ms No's picture

She looks like a fat off duty cop that I allegedly got into a fight with a bunch of years ago at a casino while on vacation because she tried to choke my friend.... allegedly.  Got lucky that internal affairs from another state (her state) got involved in that one or I would probably be in jail today.  It turns out that Jagermeister is very bad thing to be taking shots of at 3am in a clark county casino.  The band was really good though.  The drunk tank.... not so much.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:17 | 7014054 Salsipuedes
Salsipuedes's picture

9/11 was an inside job! Let´s kidnap a zoo! Only in Americurr. Let´s focus folkspeople.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:15 | 7014057 HoserF16
HoserF16's picture

You've made your point. Time to pack up and go home. There's a fight coming. This is neither the time or the place. Trust me. The fight begins when the economy collapses further and they openly come for the guns. Bt then, you'll have the military on your side and it will be game over for the NEW WORLD ORDER and their minions. 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:24 | 7014098 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

I agree with you but there's nothing wrong with letting people fight the tyranny in their own way.  These Bundy people and their ilk really feel oppressed by the federal government.  I don't think we understand.  I'm not going to begrudge them doing what they are doing but I do think the Feds will squash them like insects.  You'll see them in handcuffs before long and they'll end up doing long prison terms.  No federal judge will sympathize with them.  The Feds may even bait them into firing a firearm at federal officers by firing the first shot above the building.  That's gotta be a 10 or 20 year prison term right there.  

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:28 | 7014121 Kefeer
Kefeer's picture

"These Bundy people and their ilk really feel oppressed by the federal government.  I don't think we understand.  I'm not going to begrudge them" - END

 

You just expressed your ill-will toward them with the choice word usage of "ilk. - Just pointing out the contradiction. 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:00 | 7014259 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

I don't think so.  "Ilk" is not a loaded word.  Means "same or kind".  That's all.  I have no ill-will toward these people.  I admire them.   

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ilk  

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:17 | 7014328 Salsipuedes
Salsipuedes's picture

"Ilk" refers to a group of items of the same type. Has a connotation of the typed group being of bad or questionable character."

I got two reds so far (immediately below) and I didn´t suggest they are not good people. Only their thought processes.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 20:02 | 7014551 Sir John Bagot Glubb
Sir John Bagot Glubb's picture

hmmmmmmmmmmmm............OK.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 21:14 | 7014922 robobbob
robobbob's picture

and whats up with saying "you people" apparently its some kind of racist thing now days.

I 've always used that saying. It sums up my worldview

I mean there's ME, and then there's all of..........."you people"

..........and typically getting in MY way and impeding ME from doing MY important things.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 21:17 | 7014932 conscious being
conscious being's picture

If they go to prison, they'll get out right after the revolution.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:10 | 7014305 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

What a refreshing point of view. Thanks.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:19 | 7014076 Roanman
Roanman's picture

Linda Sue Beck, "civil servant".

Lol

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:25 | 7014110 Kefeer
Kefeer's picture

Their methods may not be the best and may cause more problems to a legitimate concern; that would be a very unfortunate consequence.  I do not know what to make of it, but the outcome may be real ugly and everyone looses except the fascists...I pray not.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:40 | 7014168 ToSoft4Truth
ToSoft4Truth's picture

Send in the tanks! 

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:42 | 7014179 coast
coast's picture

I posted a couple of days ago, that the "militia" made their point, did well, now they should go home...But I got to thinking, what if the FBI just "went home"?  The militia could just sit their all winter? no media etc?   If I were head of FBI, I would just call all my people home...to me its an xlnt move for the FBI...Seems the "militia" is doing nothing but keeping the grounds maintained..headlines "FBI DECIDES MILITIA CAN USE WILDFLIFE REFUGE FOR CAMPING OUT AND GETTING AWAY FROM THEIR WIVES FOR AWHILE RATHER THAN HAVE CASUALTIES....

p.s.  I am a friggin genius :-)

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:45 | 7014193 Bastiat
Bastiat's picture

Obama to Lynch: can't we just drone those crackers?

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:51 | 7014223 benb
benb's picture

Just cause. Wrong place at the wrong time.

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:57 | 7014247 I AM SULLY
I AM SULLY's picture

Are they tipping over cars yet?

(by now, in Ferguson, they'd be setting shit on fire)

(are they setting shit on fire yet?)

(no break-ins at auto parts stores?)

(sigh)

(white people don't know how to do this)

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 18:59 | 7014256 PrimalScream
PrimalScream's picture

One thing is sure ... the Bundy's have really backed themselves into a corner now.

If they decide to walk out of there - they are probably looking at 10-15 years in a Federal prison.

If they decide to hold their ground ... they will be dead.

FOR WHAT ??????

Realistically, any person is probably a lot better off being dead, compared to being in a Federal Prison.  Especially if the Feds decide to make an "example" of you, and throw you into high security confinement. If you survive, you will just be a walking Zombie. 

So .. was this really worth it for Bundy and all the guys who joined that group??

Thu, 01/07/2016 - 19:11 | 7014313 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Perhaps not for them, but potentially for the rest of us.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!