Where Things Stand at the Oregon Refuge Standoff – What You Should Know

0
Share

hammond-family-protest-sign-01022016

Montel Williams recently called for the feds to kill the ranchers who have taken over the Oregon refuge but he wasn’t alone. Other Twitter comments ranged from death threats to mocking to support.

On Sunday, The Washington Post called the ranchers and militiamen “occupiers.” The New York Times opted for “armed activists” and “militia men.” The WaPo and LA Times are now calling them terrorists but they did not use that word in reference to the violent Occupy Wall Street groups or the Ferguson rioters.

The Tea Party were also called terrorists. The word ‘terrorist’ is being abused.

Don’t let the shape your opinion.

I don’t believe armed men should take over a trivial little federal building in Oregon or anywhere but these men have a just cause and the abuse by the federal government should be of concern to everyone. The government is out of control. The feds not only want to control all the land and tell you not to eat meat, they are making it happen. You can want the militia to leave the refuge and still like the message.

For now, the feds, aware of bad press, will not raid the refuge building, they will try to freeze them out by cutting off power.

Cliven Bundy has said he is not against the government, he is against government abuse.

building they've taken over
Malheur building- the Federal building currently being occupied.

Some in Harney County believe this standoff has meaning.

Watch:

The standoff originally began as a protest in support of the Hammond family, ranchers who were accused of being terrorists and arsonists for setting a prescribed burn that went slightly awry.  The Hammonds were re-sentenced by an overzealous leftist prosecutor. The Hammonds weren’t even allowed to talk to the militia and the Bundys under threat and have since gone back to jail (see the second video). The militia and the Bundys now say their cause centers on the unlawful federal land grabs.

In an article Wednesday, we explained the constitutional issue which is what the Bundy and Hammond cases are about. The fight is not about the Hammonds or the Bundys. The federal government has been acting lawlessly. The feds have no authority to own land outside of DC except for forts and ports with permission of the states. That’s what the constitution demands. The section in the constitution on Territories certainly doesn’t apply. There are no Territories within the boundaries of the United States that give authority over the land to the Feds.

In this next video by an impassioned constitutional lawyer, KrisAnn Hall, the role of the states and the federal government is explained so clearly there can be no dispute. People have to decide if they want a Constitutional Republic or an Oligarchy, because that is where we stand at this moment in time.

Nowhere in the constitution is the federal government given the right to own more than 25% of the land in the nation and more than 50% of the land in the West. The states, not the federal government, are the creators and the controllers of the federal government and it is the states who are the ultimate arbiters of the constitution.

When the government owns the property of the people, it is not a just government as James Madison has told us.

James Madison defined property as “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

The Marxists do not believe in private ownership or individual rights. It’s only the collective that has rights.

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own,” James Madison said. Madison believed this authority should be “sparingly bestowed on a government”.

This fight in Oregon is about the constitution. The genteel city dwellers who mock the militia as ignorant hayseeds need to read the constitution and they need to learn history. It’s not the Bundys who lack understanding.

Do we want an unlimited federal government? Do you want an oligarchy?

The constitution is the foundation of America and if the federal government can set that aside, there is no limit on it at all.

It is time to defend the constitution.

All of the details of the standoff in Oregon and the Hammond case are explained clearly on this video. As Libertarians warned, these terrorism laws are being applied to ordinary Americans who are not terrorists. It’s clearly an abuse of power.

When you hear these details, you should be angry with the federal government.

I post this next video frequently but people need to know about these very real abuses by the government and nothing says it better than the case of an embattled ranch family in Nevada.

A person I know is an older German woman who grew up as a child under Hitler. When the Tea Party came into being around 2009, she was horrified and said, “No one must ever go against the government. The government is everything.”

This is what we are faced with now, people who think you don’t go up against the government, no matter how unjust.

Please listen to this if you haven’t already.

There is also an excellent rundown at Conservative TreeHouse and at KrisAnn Hall’s website.

Share