Via WRSA, pardons for the ranchers.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday pardoned two imprisoned Oregon ranchers whose sentencing on arson convictions sparked the 2016 occupation of a wildlife refuge, part of a long-simmering dispute over federal land policies in the U.S. West.

The armed standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Oregon followed a judge’s ruling that sent Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven, back to prison to serve more time after their initial release. Police shot one of the occupiers dead during the 41-day midwinter protest.

The takeover was another flare-up in a decades-old conflict over federal control of millions of acres of public land in the Western United States. In Oregon, about half of all land is controlled by the federal government.

Right.  “Arson.”

It’s really important to remember what these charges are all about, and it isn’t arson.  Here it is.

Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.

They were going to have to sell their ranch in order to pay fines and legal fees.  Sell their ranch.  Folks were interested in buying it.

But for what purpose?  Uranium and gold.  That’s right, the Clinton Foundation / Clinton Global Initiative and deals cut with the BLM were behind all of this.  These men weren’t guilty of arson.  It was an accident, and a small amount of land was burned anyway, and for good reason.

The Washington Post:

On the livestream, Fry was rambling almost incoherently about the government, abortion, the Middle East, nuclear power plants, drone strikes in Pakistan and his belief in UFOs. He railed against “monopolies” and “chemical castration” by the government. He was angry that he couldn’t “find a way to make an income without paying taxes for atrocities.” He complained that nobody would bring him any marijuana. He spoke about killing himself and said he had his weapon at his side.

[ … ]

“David, this is Ammon Bundy,” he said on the 96-second clip. “I want you to know that there is a future out here. You have a future. . . . Your actions here really mattered and we love you. Please come out of there.”

After several silent minutes, Fry lit a cigarette and said, “Well, alrighty then.”

He shouted that he wanted everyone there to say “Hallelujah.”

The FBI agents yelled “Hallelujah!”

Thirty miles away, at an FBI command post in an old schoolhouse in Burns where top state and federal officials were watching a live video feed, everyone shouted “Hallelujah!”

And Fry walked out of the tent.

Oh dear.  So there are a number of tactical, logistical and strategic lessons learned in this set of events.  According to Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum, Bundy started this occupation on the spur of the moment, rather unplanned.  Whimsical, ad hoc outings perhaps have a place in romantic relationships, but not in military operations.  They had no logistical support, they had no means of egress, escape and evasion, they didn’t know if they would have the support and agreement of anyone else, and they carried guns with them on what they apparently intended to be a peaceful protest.

Don’t ever carry a gun you don’t intend to use.**  This group wasn’t prepared to pull their triggers, so the guns should have been left at home.  It should have been a old fashioned sit-in like the hippies who protested the Vietnam war.  If they were intent on taking guns and using them, they should have planned this set of events much differently.

Their communications was a disaster, and sadly, the presentation of the issues was so bad that it harmed the cause of reducing the size and influence of an out-of-control federal government.  Many of us can agree over the offensiveness of forcing us to fund planned parenthood and other progressive causes with our taxes, as well as socialized medicine for people who choose not to work.

But nuclear power plants are a great contribution to the clean, cheap electrification of America, and very few of us believe in UFOs.  At least, I don’t.  I’m surprised that Fry didn’t bring up notions of the American government taking down the WTC, and fake moon landings.  None of this, by the way, is related to the mistreatment of ranchers, the horrible prosecution of the Hammonds, and the ownership of land by the federal government.  They didn’t stay on point because they apparently didn’t have a point.

Finally, if you’re armed and occupying a federal building, demanding that the fedgov bring you marijuana is probably bad press.  You know what I mean?

UPDATE: ** To address idiotic comments I’ve seen about this remark on Mike’s web site, this remark has nothing to do with concealed carry, and you know it.  Carry a rifle, pistol, ammunition and tactical gear if you intend to conduct close quarters battle or small unit maneuver warfare.  Do not bring an AR-15 or a scoped rifle to a sit-in.  If you do, you’ll be charged with obstructing a federal officer in the performance of his duties and spend the next three decades in federal prison, while other men have to work to support your wife and children.  And nothing good will have come of it.

ABC News:

The Rev. Franklin Graham has spoken with the remaining armed occupiers of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

The Oregonian reports ( http://bit.ly/1PTCRw2 ) that a spokesman for Graham confirmed that he communicated by phone with the four occupiers and federal officials.

Todd Shearer told the newspaper that Graham had no comment beyond that statement.

The last four occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge had asked Graham to help them negotiate their departure. They have said they want assurances they won’t be arrested.

Well, Franklin Graham is a very good man.  I know folks who work for him, I have immense respect for him, and the remaining holdouts at Malheur did well to select him.  Go ahead.  I’d like to see the Oregon State Police lie to him and give safe passage to the remaining boys at the building, only to arrest them later.  Go ahead, you worms.  Lie to Rev. Franklin Graham.  Actually, they won’t.  They’ll tell the truth.  There is no good outcome for these boys now.  The fedgov won’t let this go, they will drive this through to a conclusion, they want the land, they don’t want any more trouble from advocates for freedom, they want the unwashed masses to shut up.  Even Rev. Graham won’t be able to stop what the fedgov intends to do.

Leaders of the Oregon county where an armed group has been occupying a national wildlife refuge are rejecting calls that they resign.

In a statement Tuesday, Harney County said it was responding to demands from the Pacific Patriots Network, which has organized rallies in support of the occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The statement said Judge Steve Grasty, Sheriff David Ward and two county commissioners would not step down.

Too bad.  I hope they lose everything, personally and professionally.  I consider them morally unfit to suck swine.

An Arizona man arrested in the occupation of the Oregon wildlife refuge remains in federal custody after a judge held off ruling on prosecutors’ request to keep him detained as he awaits trial.

Jon Eric Ritzheimer of Peoria, Arizona, was a vocal presence in the occupation in Oregon before leaving to visit his family on Jan. 25. The FBI arrested him the next day in Arizona.

Ten others also have been arrested in the standoff that began Jan. 2 when an armed group opposed to federal land policy took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ritzheimer faces a federal felony charge in Oregon of conspiracy to impede federal officials in their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that Ritzheimer’s repeated rejection of federal authority makes him a flight risk and unsuitable for court-ordered supervision.

Let that statement wash over you again.  “Rejection of federal authority.”  Listen to it again.  Rejection of federal authority.  Sort of like rejection of the constitutionality of the Hughes amendment?  Or rejection of the notion that the federal government has a moral or constitutional right to own land?  Or rejection of the constitutionality of the existence of the ATF?  That kind of rejection of federal authority?

You can sign up several million more folks in that category.

Oh, by the way, ponder on this.  During the trial in 2012, the Hammonds had to agree to give the BLM the first right of refusal if they ended up having to sell the ranch or leases (remember that massive $400,000 fine?).  And in a tip of the hat to unconstitutional, unethical practice and bad faith, the government forced them into an agreement NOT to appeal the 2012 decision.  A citizen has a right to appeal, and I’m not referring to discretionary appeal, such as with the Supreme Court.

“Do what we say, and shut up,” said the fedgov.  Good Lord!  How do these people sleep at night.

For those who have tracked this with at least a modicum of interest, this has all been puzzling.  WeaponsMan has this to say about the death of Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum.

This whole mess began because a Federal prosecutor (like all of them an effete urbanite with many years in Eastern elite colleges) thought it would be amusing to make a felony out of some careless brush burnoffs by a couple of ranchers, and send the hayseeds to prison.

Amusing, you say?  This all happened because someone wanted to be amused?  Digging a little deeper, the original case was so weak that if something like this had happened around these parts, those responsible might have faced community service, a small to moderate fine and a stern talking-to by the judge.  To explain just how bizarre this whole thing was to start out, and just how head-scratching the drama surrounding this was, I turn to none other than Western Livestock Journal, well before any of this ever happened.

BLM filed charges against the Hammonds back in 2012. The federal prosecutor chose to prosecute them under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Anti-terrorism Act).

The trial court’s 2012 findings can be summarized as follows: Dwight and Steven admitted to having started two fires, for which the court found them guilty. One of the fires was a prescribed burn in 2001 that, according the court record, accidentally spread onto 139 acres of BLM land. Those 139 acres happened to be located on one of the family’s federal grazing allotments. The other fire, from 2006, was a back-burn. Steven had set the fire on the family’s private property in order to protect their winter feed from a lightening fire that had started on adjacent BLM land. That fire accidentally spread to one acre of BLM land.

Those are the facts of the case.  They aren’t any more complicated than that.  This all has to do with some controlled burns that weren’t exactly controlled, and an agreement the Hammonds say they had with BLM that apparently they didn’t have in writing (big mistake).  Continuing with the report.

The trial court sentenced Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son, to a combined three months, one year and one day in prison. They served their time in 2013 and are now under three years’ “supervised release.” The court additionally revoked their firearms and Dwight lost his pilot’s license.

The Hammonds are also paying $400,000 as part of a separate settlement agreement with BLM.

They may be forced to sell part of their ranch to BLM to make the payment. BLM has additionally refused to renew the family’s federal grazing permits for two years running. This means Hammonds can use neither their BLM allotments nor thousands of their private acres, which are intermingled with BLM land. It should be noted that the civil settlement and the BLM’s refusal of Hammonds’ grazing permits are, technically, unrelated to the criminal case.

So this begins to get interesting, yes?  A harsh settlement with the court, loss of weapons rights, huge fine, time in prison, and now (this is the interesting part) loss of grazing permits and possibly having to sell the ranch because of the huge fine.  Remember, this is all stuff that was known well before anything with the so-called occupation ever occurred.  Let’s continue.

… the federal government was unsatisfied with the less-than-five-year sentence handed down by the trial court, and decided to appeal.

In the first instance, why did the federal government choose to prosecute under an anti-terrorism statute? A reading of the court documents does not provide a clear answer. The Anti-terrorism Act was enacted following the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings in the 1990s. Legislative history shows the law’s purpose is to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” More specific purposes include authorizing federal courts to hear claims against “terrorist governments for acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens…” and revising criminal laws regarding “unlawful possession, use, transfer, and trafficking in nuclear materials and biological and chemical weapons.”

The government originally attempted to prosecute the father and son for nine violations of the Anti-terrorism Act. The trial court found Hammonds guilty on only two counts: for having started the 2001 prescribed burn and the 2006 back-burn. The guilty charges came under section 844(f) of the Act, which calls for a minimum of five years in prison for anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property [of] the United States…” However, the judge and jury appeared to be conflicted over applying the Anti-terrorism Act’s full force. As noted by Judge Michael Hogan of the District Court, Hammonds’ fires likely rejuvenated and improved the federal range. Indeed, it would defy logic to expect Hammonds to purposefully and “maliciously” damage their own BLM allotments.

Of importance, too, was the trial court’s finding that no lives were endangered or harmed by the fires—which, under the Anti-terrorism Act, would have meant a minimum prison sentence of seven years.

You can read the rest for yourself.  Now, to be sure, we can combine this ridiculous legal situation with problems of our own with the Bundy’s visit to Malheur.  To begin with, if they had surrounded the Hammond’s home at their request and refused to allow him to be taken to prison, this might have ended differently, and would probably have had the support of most of the patriot community.  Instead, they occupied an unrelated building in the middle of nowhere, without the Hammonds having requested it.

Furthermore, this was tactically and logistically unsustainable, and lacked means of egress, evasion and escape.  For me, there is also the problem that the occupation is intermingled with eschatological complexities of the LDS.  Ammon Bundy claimed to be told by God to do this, and one occupier said “I’m Captain Moroni, from Utah.”  This is important.  If you do not understand the significance of this, then study it.

As for me and my theological views (give me a brief minute here, as this is related to the article), God doesn’t reveal Himself today (contra LDS, Pentecostal, or Roman Catholic with the pope speaking “ex cathedra”).  He has revealed Himself, past tense.  It’s closed – finished.  See the Westminster Confession of Faith.  I am to follow His laws for my life, and honor His guidelines and wisdom in my interactions.  I don’t listen for “voices,” wait for visions or expect God to favor me with knowledge other men don’t have.

So if you tell me God said for you to do something or other, I’m more than likely going to say, “Thank you sir,” shake your hand and be on my way.  The situation was a bad case for patriots, poorly planned, poorly thought out, and badly executed.  But it is what it is, not perfect.  Perhaps I couldn’t have done better.

And into the gap stepped Bundy, his friends and Mr. Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum.  They may not have known what they were stumbling into, but it is dark, deep, and a sad commentary on the state of this pitiful nation.  Let’s take a step further into the darkness, thanks to Jon Rappoport.

Is uranium at the heart of the Oregon Malheur federal-protestor standoff? That’s the question I’m asking. It isn’t a flippant question.

I realize there are many other issues swirling around this event. The Hammonds, the Bundys, militias, the feds, cattle grazing on federal lands, federal land grabs, and so on. This article isn’t meant to take apart those matters.

It’s meant to follow up on my previous article, in which I present a circumstantial case for the Clintons’ heavy involvement in a scheme that’s transferred 20% of US uranium production to Putin and Russia. And the key company in that piece is Uranium One. Remember the name. It’s apparently a major clue in what I’m about to discuss.

I also want to say, at the outset, that I don’t know how many independent news outlets and websites are covering the uranium question, or which outlet initiated this line of investigation. I’m relying on one provocative January 23 article at intellihub, by Shepard Ambellas:

“Clinton Foundation took massive payoffs, promised Hammond Ranch and other publicly owned lands to Russians, along with one-fifth of our uranium ore.”

Down in the body of that article, the author provides a link to a page at the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is a federal agency under the Department of the Interior.

On that BLM page (“National BLM > OR/WA > Energy > Uranium Energy”), in a section titled, “Uranium on BLM-Administered Lands in OR/WA,” [(image of webpage forthcoming)] is the following statement:

“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon. Oregon Energy is interested in developing a 17-Claim parcel of land known as the Aurora Project through an open pit mining method. Besides the mine, there would be a mill for processing. The claim area occupies about 450 acres and is also referred to as the ‘New U’ uranium claims.

“On May 7, 2012, Oregon Energy LLC made a presentation to the BLM outlining its plans for development for the mine.

“The Vale District has agreed to work with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife on mitigation for the ‘New U’ uranium claims, which are located in core sage grouse habitat. Although the lands encompassing the claims have been designated core, the area is frequented by rockhounds and hunters, and has a crisscrossing of off-highway vehicle (OHV) roads and other significant land disturbance from the defunct Bretz Mercury Mine, abandoned in the 1960s.

“However, by the fall of 2012 the company said that it was putting its plans for the mine on hold until the uncertainty surrounding sage grouse issues was resolved.”

The first sentence in that BLM section ties together several key elements of the story: Uranium One; a uranium mine; southern Malheur County. Southern Malheur is the general area of the federal-protestor standoff. Let me give you that first sentence again:

“In September 2011, a representative from Oregon Energy, L.L.C. (formally Uranium One), met with local citizens, and county and state officials, to discuss the possibility of opening a uranium oxide (‘yellowcake’) mine in southern Malheur County in southeastern Oregon.”

What does this have to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton? I’ll reprint my previous article so you can read the details, but the short version is: there’s a case to be made that they, through Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation, facilitated the sale of Uranium One to Putin and the Russians. And if so, and if this area of Oregon is projected to be part of that uranium mining deal, then we are looking at a stunning “coincidence”: the US federal government is coming down hard on a group of protestors who are occupying, for their own reasons, a very valuable piece of territory that goes far beyond the issue of private cattle grazing on government land.

It comes under the heading of those old familiar lines: you have no idea what you’re involved in; you have no idea who you’re messing with; this is way over your head; you just stepped into the middle of something that’s bigger than you can imagine.

Not only is an awful lot of Uranium at stake, but the company to which he refers is very interested in Gold as well.  And right in the area of the fields of weeds in Malheur.  This observation isn’t limited to a blogger, however good he has proven to be.  Bloomberg has noted that since 2013, “the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.”  And USA Today notes that this all comes back to a huge donation to the Clinton Foundation.

This is a good summary of the situation.

This is an update to my previous article Constitutional Shake Down in Burns Oregon.

I stated in my previous article that the Chinese wanted the uranium under Harney county but it turns out it was the Russians that wanted the uranium. David Ward the sheriff it turns out, used to work for BLM and testified against the Hammonds. It has also been revealed that the Clintons under their reign made a deal with Russia to let them mine uranium under Harney County. The Clinton money laundering Foundation received approximately 2.5 million dollars in four payments from the Russian mining company now known as Uranium One that was bought from a Canadian firm.

This would explain why state officials were nervously trying to end this and why the sheriff gave his permission for the FBI to come into the county at the behest of the governor now as 200 fed vehicles come to Harney County. This governor Kate Brown is a Clinton brown nose supporter

This corruption goes all the way to the top of the Clinton white house, the justice dept, BLM, the forestry dept. and includes the sheriff playing his role in the theft of the Hammonds freedom and land by lying on the stand to convict the Hammonds as a BLM thug. The conflict of interest alone should free the Hammonds on the basis of a mistrial.

Just like the Bundy experience, which was all related to a corrupt deal by Harry Reid to enrich the Chinese communists and his own son with the Bundy land, this is related to land, how valuable it is, and the value of its minerals.  If you think that this land is for you, if you think that you can just do anything you wish with government owned land, if you like to sing “this land is your land, this land is my land, from …,” then you’re a moron and you belong at a Bernie Sanders rally.  No one except other rubes believes that anything about federal lands is yours.  Federal land is capital.  It is power.  It is largesse.  It allows gifts to those in power.  It catalyzes corruption.  It is quid pro quo, the stuff of powerful men and women who want to rule the world, the currency of graft.

The video the FBI released was purported to show, in the words of FBI special agent Greg Bretzing, “On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in that pocket.”  First of all, without the wife or daughters producing a proof of sales for a 9 mm pocket pistol, I don’t believe them.  Furthermore, it looks to me like he stumbled.

Additionally, even if he had a pocket pistol, no one with two brain cells (and I believe that Mr. Finicum had >> two brain cells) would present or produce a 9mm pocket pistol to engage in combat with multiple operators equipped with rifles, optics and body armor.  I don’t believe it.  If this video is the best they can do, they failed.  It proves nothing.  Whoever decided to release this video as evidence of Mr. Finicum’s decision to engage in combat is a moron.  It’s a video of a mad, but pitiful old man stumbling in the snow.  And you can’t prove that it’s anything but that.

Here we are with Mr. Finicum dead, a good man by all accounts, especially those who knew him best, his friends and family, and yet the evil goes much deeper.  The divisions are becoming more pronounced, and they will not be healed.  As for the shooters, Oregon police, or *.gov federal agents, whomever you are, this is what we know.  You knew that this mess needed to be closed out quickly.  Thus you did what you did.  Congratulations.  You killed Mr. Finicum so that Hillary Clinton could become enriched by selling the rights to American Uranium and Gold to a Russian communist.

This commentary assumes you are aware of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters standoff, where supporters of ranchers in Oregon are ensconced on a small building called a “headquarters.”  The lede is rather silly if you ask me, but it’s being carried that way in the main stream media.

I think myself unqualified to address the specifics of the claims made by the ranchers.  Apparently, the Hammonds say they set the fire to clear invasive plant species, and the fire got somewhat out of control and burned some innocuous federally controlled land.  Thus the charges, although the specific charges are ridiculous, relating to being domestic terrorists.  This is an overreach by the prosecutors.

Every man has his own threshold at which we will tolerate no more.  I realize that I have readers who would not tolerate having a concealed handgun permit because it is an infringement of God-given rights to self defense, an abdication of said control to the state rather than to God who issues the ruling on self defense to begin with.

I have a CHP, and my reaction is, “that’s right!”  I suffer the infringement of this God-given right because my threshold has no been crossed yet.  I am not ready to take up arms against the government, not because I believe my views are wrong, but because of other reasons.  I have a family to support, I have a job to keep, and keeping that job and supporting my family requires that I stay out of prison.  Those are the facts, like them or not.  If I want to carry a weapon and support my family, I need to have a CHP.

As for the American founders, and I consider them to be better men that I.  But again, every man has his threshold.  I will not criticize another man for his, and he shouldn’t criticize me for mine – as long as we have a reasonable threshold.

Enter men without thresholds.  What’s happening in Oregon is nothing less than armed sedition.

This is an act of armed sedition against lawful authority. That is all that it is, and that is quite enough. This is not “an expression of anti-government sentiment.” Flipping off the governor as he drives by is “an expression of anti-government sentiment.” What Alex Jones does every day is “an expression of anti-government sentiment,” and god bless them all for it. That’s what the Founders had in mind. This is not an “occupation” following “a peaceful protest.” That would be all those folks who got bludgeoned and pepper-sprayed out of Zuccotti Park a couple of years back. (And when exactly did ABC News decide it wasn’t a news organization anymore?) These are men with guns who have declared themselves outside the law. These are men with guns who have taken something that belongs to all of us. These are traitors and thieves who got away with this dangerous nonsense once, and have been encouraged to get away with it again, and they draw their inspiration not solely from the wilder fringes of our politics, either. Ammon Bundy and his brothers should have been thrown in jail after they gathered themselves in rebellion the first time.

[ … ]

There is no actual tyranny in this country against which to take up arms. There is bureaucratic inertia. There is pigheaded bureaucracy. There even is political chicanery. But there is no actual tyranny in the Endangered Species Act, or in the Bureau of Land Management, or in the Environmental Protection Agency, or in the Affordable Care Act, or in IRS dumbassery, or even in whatever it is that the president plans to say about guns in the next week or so. Anyone who argues that actual tyranny exists is a dangerous charlatan who should be mocked from the public square. Anyone who argues that there is out of political ambition, or for their own personal profit, should be shunned by decent people until they regain whatever moral compass they once had.

To reflect back for a moment on the situation, if the fire had been set to provoke the *.gov, it worked.  I won’t criticize that, although my threshold might not be the same one.  The EPA is a terrorist organization, just like the Bureau of Land Management.  Furthermore, the federal government has absolutely no business owning land.

But if the fire was set and a plan for containment to ensure that it was a true “controlled burn” was not in place, or if a professional had not been consulted to ensure that it was well done, the perpetrators are goobers.  Yes, goobers.  Not terrorists, but witless goobers.  They chose to go out and set a fire all … by … themselves … without the assistance of professionals like a fire engineer.  Yes, the EPA, National Park Service and others are full of witless goobers as well, with “controlled burns” being set near the Los Alamos National Laboratory that ended up requiring evacuation of the lab for one month, the Animas river spill in Colorado perpetrated by the EPA, and other examples.  I’m being gracious, goobers they’re not in some instances.  Terrorists they are (witness the control over wood burning stoves), and yet, they have the power at the moment.  So we’re back to that issue.

The best reaction to this comes from a tweet.

But regardless of the fact that only goobers set “controlled burns” that aren’t controlled, we are where we are with this.  And David Codrea takes the temperature.

So what are the administration’s options?  Assuming functionaries had their New Years weekends cut short, you can bet they‘re focus-grouping and war-gaming, and weighing scenarios and options. You can also bet special tactical teams are on alert, if not on their way — and if DOJ approaches this as domestic terrorism, the feds will totally marginalize the local sheriff.

They could talk the guys down, although from the rhetoric of the takeover leaders and Bundy’s conviction that he is carrying out the Lord’s will, that doesn’t sound likely. If they do come out, don’t expect the Justice Department to show leniency.

They could lay siege and wait them out, turn off all power and water, and see if a week or two might soften some resolve. On the other hand, depending on how many answer Bundy‘s call, the enforcers could find the greater cause for their concern is amassing outside their perimeter.

The third option would be to go full Waco, making sure the media is kept back so the narrative could be whatever they wanted to put out through a spokesman. It’s been done before.

That’s why an analysis by Mike Vanderboegh on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog is important for the government (and for all of us) to understand, so that people with access to decision-makers know, in no uncertain terms, the precipitous situation a brutal reaction will produce — for everyone.

If things blow up in Oregon, things could quickly get out of control everywhere, and while we can only imagine what that will look like, the certainty is things would be ugly and prolonged. The government will act and affected people who will not comply will react. It’s an incredibly dangerous situation, where a shot, whether intentional or an “accidental” discharge — and it may not even matter which “side” fires it — could be the “Time’s up” spark that changes all the rules.

The fact that those occupying the federal building are being labeled as seditionists and insurrectionists should be a badge of honor, whether those doing the occupying deserve it or not.  The writer at Esquire forgets (or never understood) America’s rich relationship with sedition.  We began that way, we will live that way, we will embrace change when the threshold has been crossed.

If you have no threshold, like the writer at Esquire, you believe that if the government says to kill every person named David who is born on the third Thursday of every month as a sacrifice to Molech, then it should be done and enforced by the power of the state.  There is no difference between you and a Nazi or Fascist or their rightful heirs, Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists and abortionists.

We are where we are.  This won’t go away, this will continue until one party backs down, the *.gov, or the people.  It may occur by preemptive surrender, but I seriously doubt it.  That means that at some point, whether this is it or just one more skirmish, it will all come to a head.  The *.gov is playing with fire, even if it doesn’t know it.