It ain’t easy being free.
In Oregon there are activities getting cranked up that were warned about days ago.
From the Oath Keepers January 1 announcement The Hammond Family Does NOT Want an Armed Stand Off
We cannot force ourselves or our protection on people who do not want it. Dwight and Steven Hammond have made it clear, through their attorney, that they just want to turn themselves in and serve out their sentence. And that clear statement of their intent should be the end of the discussion on this. No patriot group or individual has the right or the authority to force an armed stand off on this family, or around them, against their wishes. You cannot help someone who does not want your help, and who are not willing and ready to take a hard stand themselves.
Mike Vanderboegh at SipseyStreetIrregulars.BlogSpot shares his understanding of the players attempting to usurp the Hammond Family’s expressed intentions.
Based on the Conservative Tree House account, numerous federal bureaucracies launched a coordinated war against the Hammonds that appears to be never ending and fraught with prejudicial irregularities.
There are plenty of reasons to act against the out of control bureaucrats judging from the Conservative Tree House account. At this point, following characters of questionable intent who contradict the desires of the principals suffering the full force of the federal aggression would not be a smart thing to do. The domestic enemies have announced their intentions to attack the Second Amendment this year. Their unrelenting assault on the Hammond family is a perfect example of the necessity for the right to keep and bear arms. While there is no going back once the Second Amendment is called on and put in play, there is still a great deal of ground to be gained by preserving those twenty seven words arranged in that most profound fashion. Having it to wave in their faces is a power they are unable to respond to. Don’t let them take it.
In the meantime, keep focused on your neighborhood, my friends.
From http://canadafreepress.com/article/77990
…Oregon is mostly owned by the federal government (53.1%). The Western States are largely, in the terms of percentage of property ownership, owned by the federal government…
…The new States were basically told, “If you want to become a State, you will surrender this land (allow the federal government to retain control over this land) – or else, we will not grant you your statehood.” …
…According to the clause in Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, there are certain criteria required to be met in order for the federal government to own land within a State. The three requirements follows the phrase “and to exercise like Authority over all Places” in the clause. They are:
1. The land must be “purchased.”
2. The land must be acquired with the “Consent of the Legislature of the State.”
3. The property must be for the purpose of “the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.”…
…So, regarding the stand-off in Oregon (and Bundy Ranch in Nevada) the first question must be, “does the federal government have the authority to defend their ownership of that land?” If the land was not acquired legally, the answer is, “No.”
…Property retained by the federal government as a condition for statehood was never “purchased,” there was no “consent of the legislature” because the legislature of the State did not exist yet when the deal was made, and most of the property is vast stretches of land that are not held by the federal government specifically for the purpose of erecting “needful buildings.”…
…Since the land was ill-gotten, federal ownership of the land is unconstitutional. By unconstitutional, I mean to say “illegal.” Therefore, the rightful owners, the States, and the people, have a right to retrieve their stolen property. The militia, based on my immediate observations, is constitutionally in the right. They have every reason to do what they are doing, except one. How is the public perceiving this? Is what the militia is doing best for the cause?…
..I am not saying that the alternative is the opposite. This should not be a situation where either the militia is there, or they are not. But I must ask, “does the militia have the blessings of the property owners (Hammonds)? Did they exhaust all other attempts to resolve this first? Did the militia reach out to the State of Oregon seeking an alliance in this effort? What about the county, or the town? Was there a campaign of townhalls and other meetings to ensure that this “last resort of occupation” was the only remaining avenue regarding how to handle this situation?
Most of all, was there any consideration or work done regarding the messaging part of this campaign?…
The message will follow the event. We’ll see who delivers it and how it’s received.