Thursday, January 7, 2016

Leader of armed Oregon militia rejects county sheriff offer to end standoff

Via Michael

 Ammon Bundy (L) meets with Harney County Sheriff David Ward along a road south of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon, January 7, 2016.  © Jim Urquhart

The Harney County Sheriff met with the leader of the armed militia to ask them to leave the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon it has occupied since Saturday. Reuters reported that Ammon Bundy rejected the Sheriff’s offer. 
 
The sheriff, David Wade, met with Bundy on Thursday to offer them passage on the condition that they vacate Oregon. Bundy declined the offer, telling reporters, “we always consider what people say.”

This meeting was an attempt on the Sheriff’s Office behalf to end the situation peacefully. According to Oregon Live, the sheriff told Bundy that he was, “here to offer safe escort out.” The meeting follows Wednesday’s town hall meeting that drew roughly 400 people. The county has announced plans to meet with the group on Friday.

More @ RT

2 comments:


  1. Standoff in Oregon

    The biggest U.S. news this week, in terms of print space and air time devoted to it, is about the occupation of a federal wildlife facility in a remote area of Oregon by a group of states-rights advocates.

    Originally, this group assembled as a protest over the fact that two local ranchers had been sentenced to prison for conducting controlled burns on land they leased from the federal government. However, the plot was complicated by the fact that the protest was led, not by local residents, but by Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy of Nevada, who traveled to Oregon for that purpose.

    The Bundys were key figures at the famous Bundy-Ranch standoff in Nevada in 2014 against agents of the federal Bureau of Land Management who demanded the removal of his cattle from federal land that the Bundy family had leased for over a hundred years. When the Bundys were joined by supporters from the local community and neighboring states who arrived to physically confront the agents, the feds backed down, temporarily, at least.


    When Ammon Bundy emerged in Oregon as the apparent leader of the group that seized the federal facility there, it was widely perceived as a repeat of the drama in Nevada, and many Tenth-Amendment advocates instinctively were drawn to support it. However, upon closer examination, there are some important differences.

    1. In Nevada, the feds had initiated physical action against property (they were taking Bundy’s cattle) and Bundy was responding in defense mode. In Oregon, the Hammonds objected to their prison sentence but were not resisting. They even turned themselves in voluntarily. The protestors (not the Hammonds) were the ones who initiated physical force by breaking into the wildlife facility and occupying the property. Declaring that they were doing so in the name of the people is the same argument used by collectivist governments when they seize property.

    2. In Nevada, there was substantial support and friendly sentiment from local residents. In Oregon, local residents appear to be hostile to the protestors, who they view as outsiders messing up their community.

    3. In Nevada, the goal of the resistance (leave Bundy’s cattle alone) was specific and limited. It was possible to achieve without all-out war, and it allowed the federal government to save face without escalating to bloodshed. In Oregon, the goal of the resistance is to occupy the federal facility indefinitely and use it as a base to build military-style opposition to the federal government. This leaves no possible resolution other than a test of military strength. If continued on this course, a bloodbath is assured.

    It may be argued that it is time to draw a line in the sand and, if that means a bloodbath, so be it. I plan to deal with that topic in the next issue, and it will focus on the difference between a revolution and a revolt. Revolutions often succeed, bur revolts always fail. The Oregon resistance is a classic revolt.

    G. Edward Griffin
    2016 January 8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that some are armed has nothing to do with the price on eggs in China. That is the Natural Right of those who do so.

      ================

      This leaves no possible resolution other than a test of military strength

      I don't believe that is an option after WACO I & II plus Ruby Ridge and all they are possibly guilty of is breaking and entering.

      Delete