WE run a lot of material on this topic because a frightening amount of politics - public policy - is being justified by alarmist rhetoric. Most readers are familiar with what the administration dragged home from Paris despite broad public awareness that crisis predictions are not bearing out.  Response?  A slick campaign is being launched to discredit some of the best, most reliable science conducted since mankind left the cave. What's important to know is the satellite data is (and has been) verified.  Read on.
​

Posted at BREITBART
​by JAMES DELINGPOLE
15 Jan 2016

The climate alarmists have come up with a brilliant new excuse to explain why there has been no “global warming” or nearly 19 years.

Turns out the satellite data is lying.
 
And to prove it they’ve come up with a glossy new video starring such entirely trustworthy and not at all biased climate experts as Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann , Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth and Ben Santer. (All of these paragons of scientific rectitude feature heavily in the Climategate emails)
 
The video is well produced and cleverly constructed – designed to look measured and reasonable rather than yet another shoddy hit job in the ongoing climate wars.
 
Sundry “experts”, adopting a tone of “more in sorrow than anger” gently express their reservations about the reliability of the satellite data which, right up until the release of this video, has generally been accepted as the most accurate gauge of global temperatures.
 
This accuracy was acknowledged 25 years ago by NASA, which said that “satellite analysis of the upper atmosphere is more accurate, and should be adopted as the standard way to monitor temperature change.”
 
More recently, though, climate alarmists have grown increasingly resentful of the satellite temperature record because of its pesky refusal to show the warming trend they’d like it to show. Instead of warming, the RSS and UAH satellite data shows that the earth’s temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years – the so-called “Pause.”
 
Hence the alarmists’ preference for the land- and sea-based temperature datasets whichdo show a warming trend – especially after the raw data has been adjusted in the right direction. Climate realists, however, counter that these records have all the integrity of Enron’s accounting system or of Hillary’s word on what really happened in Benghazi.
 
Given the embarrassment the satellite data has been causing alarmists in recent years – most recently at the “Data or Dogma” hearing last December – it was almost inevitable that sooner or later they would try to discredit it.
 
In the video, the line taken by the alarmists is that the satellite records too have been subject to dishonest adjustments and that the satellites have given a misleading impression of global temperature because of the way their orbital position changes over time.
 
These sound plausible criticisms till you look at this graph provided by one of the scientists criticized in the video, John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

​​What it shows is how closely the satellite data corresponds with measurements taken using a completely independent system – balloons. If the satellites are lying then so are the balloons.
 
Christy told Breitbart: “There are too many problems with the video on which to comment, but here are a few. First, the satellite problems mentioned here were dealt with 10 to 20 years ago. Second, the main product we use now for greenhouse model validation is the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere (TMT) which was not erroneously impacted by these problems. The vertical “fall” and east-west “drift” of the spacecraft are two aspects of the same phenomenon – orbital decay. The real confirmation bias brought up by these folks to smear us is held by them.  They are the ones ignoring information to suit their world view.  Do they ever say that, unlike the surface data, the satellite datasets can be checked by a completely independent system – balloons? Do they ever say that one of the main corrections for time-of-day (east-west) drift is to remove spurious WARMING after 2000?  Do they ever say that the important adjustment to address the variations caused by solar-shadowing effects on the spacecraft is to remove a spurious WARMING?  Do they ever say that the adjustments were within the margin of error?”
 
He adds:  “I’m impressed someone went to so much trouble and expense.  The “satellite data” must be a real problem for someone. Do we know who financed this video?”
 
Yes, we do. It was made by the Yale Climate Connection and part funded by the Grantham Foundation. The Grantham Foundation is the creation of a UK born US based hedge funder called Jeremy Grantham (and his wife Hannelore) and has since 1997 been at the forefront of promoting climate alarmism.

Among the beneficiaries of Grantham’s green largesse are Lord Stern — author of the heavily discredited Stern Report, now with a cosy sinecure at the Grantham Institute — and Bob Ward, a failed paleopiezometrist and crop-headed pit bull impersonator who is lavishly funded to write angry letters to newspapers and other institutions explaining in boring detail why climate change sceptics are evil and wrong.
 
As for the motivation behind this well-funded smear video – it’s actually explained at the website which is promoting it.
 
In coming days, we will hear announcements from NASA, NOAA and others that 2015 was the hottest year in the modern instrumental record.
 
There will be pushback from the likes of climate denier Ted Cruz, who uses a misreading of satellite temperature data to claim, as he did on Seth Meyer’s show – “no warming in 18  years”
​
This is the story of how that distortion came to be.
 
In other words it’s yet another case of the increasingly desperate climate alarmists playing their usual game:
 
If the facts don’t suit your discredited theory, change the facts.

WE discovered and just had to share this local post encouraging free thinkers, free people, to stop playing defense, take command of the narrative, and start going on offense. The play clock has been ticking for 100 years, already.  Enough.  (Don't miss the Whittle video below; it's good.)

If you're wondering where to start personally, how about the Comprehensive Plan for Whatcom County? The Growth Management Act requires local governments to file comprehensive plans to manage how we deal with:

• Sprawl reduction
• Concentrated urban growth
• Affordable housing
• Economic development
• Open space and recreation
• Regional transportation
• Environmental protection
• Property rights
• Natural resource industries
• Historic lands and buildings
• Permit processing
• Public facilities and services
• Early and continuous public participation
• Shoreline management

This is the crap that the illiberal control freaks, statists, environmentalists, and others are throwing against your personal freedom wall.  The GMA has been aimed squarely at managing the private sector - not government's service to us. While some aspects of planning may be well intentioned, how much power should this (or any) county have to direct the day to day lives of hundreds of thousands of residents?  Without question, the Comp Plan shoves a very "select" range of opinions down citizens' throats. Those not able or patient enough to use their First Amendment rights to convince you to do what they think is right now worm their way into government to impose their will by dictum.

It's actually not difficult to throw crap  the wall; you just have to show up and get your agenda added into the document. Of course, the illiberal control freak statists populate most of the boards and commissions, so they will reject your proposals. That's why we need to overwhelm them with as many audacious proposals as we can think of. 

They haven't been letting any grass grow under their feet. The Whatcom County Comp Plan is chock full of land use constraints. You would be appalled at what you cannot do on your own property. Property that you have the privilege of paying taxes on not to use. 

Some of the other features being written in, or attempting to be written in, include 

• Removal of the term "property rights" from the plan, entirely. 
• Permanent denial of any kind of land use around Cherry Point involving the export of fossil fuel. 
• The deliberate devaluation of Cherry Point property to the extent that the Lummi Nation could purchase it. Conspiracy theory? No, conspiracy fact!

If the Lummis can afford to purchase high quality, productive land, fine! That's no skin off our nose. But this is being done to co-opt two different 'progressive' agendas: The automatic elevation of the "other" culture over our own, along with their hatred for any kind of fossil fuel, especially because of its alleged CO2 capacity. 

If we're going on a liberty offensive, we need to propose freedom validating agenda items, in addition to the ostentatious removal of oppressive-progressive agenda items, like the ones mentioned above, in numbers that would overwhelm the statists. 

There's an old story about two television shows: Rowan & Martin's Laugh In (NBC), and The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour (CBS). Laugh In was getting the most outrageous skits and bits on the air, while Smothers Brothers were being constantly censored. It was their strategy: Laugh In would submit everything they could think of, even if they thought it was terrible. The Smothers Brothers would submit their best bits. Both teams of censors threw out about the same amount of stuff, but Laugh In gave them more stuff to throw out, leaving a lot more racy stuff to be left in. Think of it like this: The 'progressives' are like Laugh In; the freedom fighters are more like the Smothers Brothers. We need to get more like Laugh In. We should not be embarrassed to submit our most outrageous liberty-minded, property rights agenda to the Comp Plan (up to and including repealing the GMA, and discarding the very premise that We the People need to be regimented with a Comp Plan. Seriously, folks! We are citizens to be free, not subjects to be managed. 

The Liberty Offensive
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2015
Kakistocracy Report
(Feel free to be offended!)
​
For about 100 years, starting around 1913, the beginning of the 'progressive' era during the Woodrow Wilson regime, and continuing with the Frankfurt School, liberty and freedom have been under attack. Freedom and liberty supporters played defense. For 100 years, we've been in defense of liberty, and look where it got us.

We need to take offense, and play offense. I keep hearing, and have said it myself, "once lost, liberty is nearly impossible to recover". That's only true if you're playing defense -- trying to defend your liberty. Don't defend liberty! Demand liberty! Make our illiberal oppressors defend their reasons for taking our liberty! Let's start kicking ass, and taking names!

Coming out of the Age of Enlightenment, the concepts of freedom and liberty were on the offense in the American Revolution, and we won against seemingly insurmountable odds. This nation was founded on the idea that the individual is the world's smallest minority, and that individual rights and responsibilities deserve the most respect. We are being oppressed. We have been playing defense for too long. The government is taking our freedom, and selling it back to us as permits. We must go on the offense! Join The Liberty Offensive!
​

​The left are throwing crap at the wall faster than we can scrape it off. Throwing legislation, ideas, movies, plots, TV shows, that all audaciously push the envelope further and further to the left. They are overshooting their goals, just so the line gets pushed to the left, where they want it. Who would have guessed, 20 years ago, that long held traditional values like marriage and Christmas would be corrupted and marginalized, and if we object,we're the ones who can be fined for bigotry?

The Constitution binds the government, and forces government to treat every citizen equally under the law. The Constitution frees the individual and private business. Everyone is at liberty to be as bigoted as we please. Other dissenting individuals and businesses are at liberty to boycott us. That's how things work in the free market of ideas. Not for very much longer.

A friend of mine was a Marine. He said that they were trained in hand-to-hand combat, to punch past the goal. If you mean to punch a man in the nose, aim for the back of his head. That way, you'll be sure to smash his nose. The left are already doing that. We cannot wait for the left to throw out their next outrageous idea, and try to fight it. Just by getting it out there, it gains a certain level of acceptance. Even if we object, and the judge says, "sustained", the jury cannot un-hear it. The defense rests. How many more times do you think the Supreme Court will say the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right?

So what does it mean to join The Liberty Offensive? It means we need to start putting our ideas out there, for the jury to hear, even if the judge says, "overruled". We need to try to pass legislation that enhances individual liberty and responsibility, even if President Zero vetoes it. We need to write songs with liberty-laced lyrics. We need to write TV shows that celebrate freedom and responsibility. We need to mock and ridicule the ridiculous PC ninny-speak. As Bill Whittle likes to say, "we are the steely-eyed missile men who believe in loud guns, hot women and fast cars". We need to aim for the back of 'progressives' heads, just to be sure we smash their noses.

​Come on, you GOP-ers, grow a pair, or a spine, or both, and start introducing some offensive legislation worthy of the name, "Grand Old Party"! And I mean "offensive" in every sense of the word. Make that legislation offensive to the left. The more offensive, the better! Go on the offensive! Be on the offensive! Offend the hell out of them! Offend their faces off! Aim past your target, so that what you hit will be the new target. Move the Overton Window back to the right. Stop walking on eggshells, being afraid to offend people. Being offended is for weenies! Donald Trump doesn't have all the right ideas, but he has the right attitude.

Audit the Fed! Defund Planned Parenthood! Dismantle the IRS and the EPA! Dismantle the Department of Education! Get rid of as much oppressive bureaucracy as possible! If it isn't an enumerated power, lose it! Audacious? You bet! Non-starters? Maybe for the first 100 tries. The 'progressives' have been doing their crap like this for 100 years. We have to play the long game.
​
No more defense of liberty! This is The Liberty Offensive! We are offensive! We're here to throw crap against the wall faster than the left can scrape it off. The stickier the better. People just want to be left alone to live their lives, keep the stuff they earned, and be decent people, to the greatest extent possible. Even 'liberals'. Suck it up, lefties!

WE wanted to share this ReasonTV video a while ago, but it seemed awfully dark to share just two days before Christmas; we set it aside. What's so interesting here is this European's concept that leftwing PC-ness and sustainability are actually "conservative" in the bad sense, that safe-space conformism is anti-progress and rigid, not liberal.

Symptoms of the conformism-cowardice culture have surfaced already just up the hill at WWU, the atmosphere where "To say something controversial is like punching someone in the face." (Goodbye free speech and free thought; how emotionally crippling.)

The YouTube description reads:  "The real threat to free speech now is conformism and cowardice," says Brendan O'Neill, editor of Spiked and a columnist for Reason.com.  The 41-year-old Londoner has similarly blunt and outspoken views about "left-wing environmentalism," which he calls "an apology for poverty"   Give it a look if you can find a few minutes.  This is very insightful.

     The coming week promises to be quite a doozie-woozie (maybe that should read woozie-doozie) for the local progressive tribe. Thrills may go up many a leg today (Monday January 11th at 12:15 PM, at the county courthouse) where the unwashed can attend the bi-annual Whatcom County Oath of Office ceremony (coronations) for the vainglorious victors of council seats, Todd Donovan and Satpal Sidhu. Witness the pledges of unwavering fidelity to the constitution given solemnly to a fawning audience of highly paid bureaucrats and crony courtiers. Following that, on Tuesday evening, this council will have to set their TIVOs to record while Obama gives his final SOTU (State of the Union) address to Congress - details here at the White House website.  [You may want to lay up a supply of Pepto Bismol or Alka Seltzer before watching that. The rational, the fair-handed, and the free are in for a bumpy ride.]
     That said, the following slightly-vintage National Review article may restore your pulse.  By all means, take a moment to read it.

Great Caesar’s Ghost
On the nauseating spectacle that is
the State of the Union address
By Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
( Vintage - January 28, 2014 - well worth a re-read)

The annual State of the Union pageant is a hideous, dispiriting, ugly, monotonous, un-American, un-republican, anti-democratic, dreary, backward, monarchical, retch-inducing, depressing, shameful, crypto-imperial display of official self-aggrandizement and piteous toadying, a black Mass during which every unholy order of teacup totalitarian and cringing courtier gathers under the towering dome of a faux-Roman temple to listen to a speech with no content given by a man with no content, to rise and to be seated as is called for by the order of worship — it is a wonder they have not started genuflecting — with one wretched representative of their number squirreled away in some well-upholstered Washington hidey-hole in order to preserve the illusion that those gathered constitute a special class of humanity without whom we could not live.

It’s the most nauseating display in American public life — and I write that as someone who has just returned from a pornographers’ convention.  It’s worse than the Oscars.

The national self-debasement begins well before the speech is under way. Members of Congress — supposedly free men and women serving as the elected representatives of the citizens of a self-governing republic — arrive hours early, camping out like spotty-faced adolescents waiting for Justin Bieber tickets, in the hope of staking out some prime center-aisle real estate that they might be seen on television, if only for a second or two, being greeted by the national pontifex maximus as he makes his stately procession into the chamber.

When the moment comes and the sergeant-at-arms utters the sacred words — “Mr. Speaker! The president of the United States!” — the chamber will erupt, as though the assembled have entirely forgotten that the mysterious entity that is the object of this curious act of national worship only a decade ago was an obscure legislator in a destitute and corrupt state, a man whose most prominent legislative accomplishment was the passage of a bill requiring police to videotape confessions in potential capital cases — in a state in which there were as a practical matter no potential capital cases. (Illinois had not carried out an execution during the century in which the law was passed and was on its way toward abolishing capital punishment categorically.)

But they will listen, rapt, and the media mandarins afterward will evaluate each promise with great sobriety, ignoring entirely that the central promise made during the same charlatan’s first State of the Union address was subsequently labeled “Lie of the Year” by the great man’s own frustrated admirers. That an entire class of people should be so enthusiastic about being lied to, serially, is perplexing.

And then there are the human props. This year’s victim du jour is one Jason Collins, an aging professional basketball player boasting more than $32 million in lifetime earnings who has publicly affirmed his homosexuality. For this act of courage/oversharing, he is to be seated in the first lady’s box. That there is such a thing as the first lady’s box is lamentable in and of itself. There is a royal box at London’s Royal Opera, complete with a private, Victorian-style toilet. And while the antiquated royal toilet may be a perfect metaphor for the State of the Union festivities, this is a republic, not a monarchy, and honors and offices are not accrued through marriage. Michelle Obama is a currently unemployed former part-time hospital administrator and mother to two lovely daughters. That is admirable enough, but she is a figure of public importance through marriage only, which is to say, properly a figure of curiosity, not of policy. She is not a royal consort, and proximity to her in seating should not constitute a message about the direction of government. (Even Lady Macbeth was known to dispense with such pretensions when pressed: “Stand not upon the order of your going,” she advises her dinner guests.)

There will be other totems, of course: victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, the District of Columbia’s teacher of the year (cf. “tallest building in Wichita”), and a kid who built an “extreme marshmallow cannon” for a White House science fair — an act of engineering that almost certainly would have gotten him kicked out of any D.C. teacher of the year’s classroom, if not imprisoned.

The State of the Union has not always been a grotesque spectacle. George Washington delivered his briefing in person, but he was dealing with a self-respecting Congress that understood itself to be his equal in government. When he wanted the Senate’s advice and consent for an Indian treaty, he visited the chamber personally to seek it — and was so put off by the questioning and debate to which he was subjected that he vowed never to put himself through that again. It was an excellent idea. Thomas Jefferson, ever watchful against monarchical pretensions in the federal apparatus, discontinued the practice of delivering the State of the Union in person before Congress, instead submitting a written report. For a blessed century, Jefferson’s example was followed, and, despite civil war and the occasional financial panic, the nation thrived without an ersatz Caesar to rule over it.

It will come as no surprise that the imperial model was reinstated by Woodrow Wilson, Princeton’s answer to Benito Mussolini and the most dangerous man ever elected to the American presidency, a would-be dictator who attempted to criminalize the act of criticizing the state, dismissed the very idea of individual rights as “a lot of nonsense,” and described his vision of the presidency as effectively unlimited (“The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can”). A big man needs a big show, and it is to Wilson’s totalitarian tastes that we owe the modern pageant.
The next Republican president should remember why his party is called the Republican party and put a stop to this.

The State of the Union is only one example of the deepening, terrifying cult of the state that has taken root here. Many heads of state — and some royals, for that matter — fly on commercial aircraft. Presidents of the Swiss federation and members of the federal council receive . . . an unlimited train pass. They have occasional access to a Cessna maintained by the air force, but are known to use mass transit — just like the people they are elected to represent. An American president stages a Roman triumph every time he heads out for a round of golf. The president’s household costs well more than $1 billion annually to operate. The president’s visage is more ubiquitous than was Vladimir Lenin’s in his prime, his reach Alexandrian, his sense of immortality (they call it “legacy”) pharaonic. Washington has become a deeply weird and alien place, a Renaissance court with armored sedans and hundred-million-dollar paydays.

It’s expensive maintaining an imperial class, but money isn’t really the object here, and neither is the current occupant of the White House, unlikeable as he is. Whether it’s Barack Obama or some subsequent pathological megalomaniac, Republican or Democrat, the increasingly ceremonial and quasi-religious aspect of the presidency is unseemly. It is profane. It is unbecoming of us as a people, and it has transformed the presidency into an office that can be truly attractive only to men who are unfit to hold it.

George Washington showed the world that men do not need a king. We, his heirs, have allowed the coronation of something much worse.
​
— Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review.

    Whatcom Excavators have been sharing what they can since 2011 about the sleaze and secrecy that's eroded this county over the last twenty years. The Gang-Green Staff Infection has now spread into virtually every department of every local jurisdiction, all the way down into the small cities. Bad as things are, secrecy promises to become even more putrid under the current local administration and council unless citizens start pushing back by demanding that the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act are upheld faithfully. Let the sunshine in.  Supposedly the state attorney general cares. (WE shall see.)
    Nationally, if this account is accurate, the bell seems to be tolling for Missus Hillary.

Breaking News, American Spectator
The Bells Toll for Hillary
The FBI is closing in.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. – 1.8.16

The Federal Bureau of Investigation will recommend that the Justice Department bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and various of her aides, and soon. The evidence consists of materials that the Bureau has gathered in the course of its months-long investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s personal server. The recommendations will come very soon.

The charges will consist of some of the following:

1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
2. Destruction of government records.
3. Lying to federal agents.
4. Lying under oath.
5. Obstruction of justice.

All the counts are familiar to those of us who have followed the Clintons for a quarter of a century, but, as one source familiar with the FBI’s investigation told me, the evidence has now reached a “critical mass.”

There are those who have told me that the FBI has been engaged in a ruse. And that the Bureau will report it has come across nothing criminal. Then the whole imbroglio is expected to blow over.

But such cynics are in the minority. Most sources have told me the investigation is genuine, serious, and all but completed. One told me that it was completed two months ago. The Bureau has put together a case that as one source put it “is locked up. It is solid.”
In the past, as FBI agent I.C. Smith wrote in his book Inside: A Top G-Man Exposes Spies, Lies, and Bureaucratic Bungling Inside the FBI, the Clintons have benefited from a few corrupt agents, usually in Arkansas. But that was years ago, and in Arkansas. This is the FBI in Washington, at the top where there are plenty of utterly professional law enforcement officials. They believe truth matters and so does the pursuit of justice. “They have been building a case that is unassailable,” one source told me. “It is beyond the case against Petraeus.… It is about the violation of federal statutes.”

The only question now is will the recommendations come this month or within sixty days. Politicians with the presidential itch such as Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry hope the FBI’s recommendations will come in a week or so to allow them to get into the race. Other observers say the decision will come later. “The FBI,” said one source, “does not care about politics.” Whether it comes tomorrow or in sixty days, Justice Department policies mandate making such decisions as far in advance of elections as possible. If there are conflicting winds blowing in the Bureau or DOJ, they must avoid the appearance of being motivated by partisan politics.

Yet such is the gravity of the charges and the consequences of neglecting them that they cannot be ignored. If they are ignored, people familiar with the investigation say, it will be impossible to prosecute future defendants being charged with the mishandling of classified information. Said Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney, “The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if [the Attorney General] refuses to bring charges.” FBI Director James Comey has reportedly said he will resign if the Bureau’s recommendations for charges are ignored.

One source familiar with the case said the indictments will begin with the “small fish” starting with Bryan Pagliano, the keeper of Hillary’s server, and move on to the Big Enchilada, Hillary. Whatever happens, seasoned political players have claimed Hillary will continue in the race for Democratic nomination. Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean, was overheard in the Green Room at Fox saying Hillary will run to the end.
​
Avert your gaze.

     The adage that "there are always two sides to every story" led the Vator to seek the best account WE could find on the "Oregon militia take-over," a situation that's getting very odd coverage from the mainstream media.  There is no way to vet this account from here, but this post is loaded with links, including a bunch at the bottom that may prove out. This is long and admittedly a "WE report, you decide" piece, but well worth wading through, roughly formatted as it is. WE reader comments and observations are definitely welcome:
​

Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon – “Militia” Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…
Posted on January 3, 2016
By sundance at "The Conservative Treehouse"
​
Grab a Cup of Coffee – Because This is Soup-to-Nuts.
​
Many people will awaken today to the news of approximately 100 to 150 armed militia taking control of a closed Wildlife Park Headquarters, and not know the full back-story – so here it is:

The short summary is:  in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,) who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) armed militia (former U.S. service members) have taken control of Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.  They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.
​
Here’s the long version: including history, details, links, video(s) and explanations:

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for migrating birds on their annual trek north.
(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme, create an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin. The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4 grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights. The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.
(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over 187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide. The expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds to the Hammond’s ranch. Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other ranchers also choose not to sell.
(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different approach to get the ranchers to sell. Ranchers were told: “grazing was detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave. Grazing fees were raised significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel took over the irrigation system claiming it as their own.
(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain. The FWS wanted to acquire the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast holdings. Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled. Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded. Homes, corrals, barns and graze-land were washed a way and destroyed. The ranchers who once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches. In 1989 the waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies plains are a proud part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed by the FWS.
(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who still owned private property adjacent to the refuge. Susie Hammond in an effort to make sense of what was going on began compiling facts about the refuge. In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private property. The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the refuge.  The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more likely to land on private property than on the refuge. When Susie brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, her and her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses and corruptions.
(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon. When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and vindictive toward the Hammonds. The US Fish and Wildlife Service challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit Court. The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs to the Hammonds.*
(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence around the Hammonds water source. Owning the water rights, and knowing that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried to stop the building of the fence. The BLM & FWS called the Harney County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or federal contractors (two counts, each a felony).  Dwight spent one night in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in Portland. He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released without bail. A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal judge never set another date.
(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the Hammond’s private property. In order to get to the upper part of the Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge. The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the Hammonds if they drove through it. The Hammonds removed the barricades and gates and continued to use their right of access. The road was proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged the BLM & FWS.
(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given cause, court proceeding or court ruling. As a traditional “fence out state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the movement of the livestock. The Hammonds still intended to use their private property for grazing. However, they were informed a federal judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to observe the Oregon fence out law. “Those laws are for the people, not for them”.
(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of fences or be restricted from the use of their private property. Cutting their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so the cattle were removed.
(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to the ranch being diminished. The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed their cattle. This property included two grazing rights on public land. Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.
(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.
(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine prescribed burn on their ranch. Later that day he started a prescribed fire on their private property. The fire went onto public land and burned 127 acres of grass. The Hammonds put the fire out themselves. There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to the Hammonds at that time. Prescribed fires are a common method that Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the health & productivity of the land for many centuries.
(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that joined together inflaming the countryside. To prevent the fire from destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond (Son) started a backfire on their private property. The backfire was successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands of acres within a short period of time. The backfire saved much of the range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter. Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.
(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and Steven Hammond for starting the backfire. A few days after the backfire a Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee. Steven accepted. When leaving he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger Orr. Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back his father. Both Dwight and Steven were booked and on multiple Oregon State charges. The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined the accusations against Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all the charges.
(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S. Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”. Susan Hammond (Wife & Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.
(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the Hammonds. A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable range land. Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called Capital Press to complain he had not made those comments and requested they be taken down from the website. Capital Press removed the comments. A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments revealed the origin as the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado. Allum said, he is friends with the Hammonds and he was alerted to the comments by neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them. “I feel bad for them. They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the ranchers. “They’re not terrorists”.  “There’s this hatred in the BLM for them, and I don’t get it,” the retired BLM employee said. Jody Weil, deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office, indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.
(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided. The agents informed the Hammonds they were looking for evidence that would connect them to the fires. The Hammonds later found out a boot print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires. No matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their property. Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”.  Steven Hammond openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the winter grass from being destroyed and the backfire ended up working so well it put out the fire altogether.
(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail which would exonerate the Hammonds. Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the Hammonds. The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day. Many of the facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury.  Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and productivity of the land. Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.
(o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness who was not mentally capable to be credible.  Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible.  However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.
(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection process. Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how land is used and cared for in the Diamond Valley. All of the jurors had to drive back and forth to Pendleton every day. Some drove more than two hours each way. By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.
On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict. [Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a decision.]  Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what punishment could be imposed upon an individual convicted as a terrorist under the 1996 act. The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days, very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave a verdict and went home.
(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury. However, the federal courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. Both were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commented if the full five years were required it would be a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The day of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.
(r) On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months). Dwight was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.
(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM, and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to federal prison for the entire 5 years.*
(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “re-sentenced” Dwight and Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years. Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children. Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74) to be alone after 55 years of marriage. If he survives, he will be 79 when he is released.
(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the BLM first right of refusal; if the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they would have to sell it to the BLM.
(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing. Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.
To date the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here)

Now you can watch this video where Ammon Bundy responds to why he and his brothers are involved. (This was recorded ... on Jan 1st):
​

After a protest rally supporting the Hammond family yesterday, a pre-planned group, including the Bundy Brothers, left a peaceful protest at the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and went to the closed (for holiday) Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they have seized and occupied the refuge headquarters.

Statement from Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward:
“After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation.”(link)

​(Via Oregon Live) […] The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast of Burns for years.
The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.

Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, and two of his brothers. Militia members at the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The refuge, federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and unoccupied for the holiday weekend.

In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night, Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to hurt anyone. But they would not rule out violence if police tried to remove them, they said.

“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy said.
​
“We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely,” he added. “This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.” (more)

​A letter dated January 1st outlines the position of the Bundy brothers, as well as the 150+ in the Militia as it relates to the Hammond family:

​References:
♦ Full Facts On Hammond Case HERE
♦ BEST Local Reporter Twitter Feed HERE
♦ Oregon Live Article HERE
♦ Bundy Ranch Facebook HERE
♦ Bundy Ranch Website HERE
♦ Malhuer National Wildlife Refuge – Resource HERE
Here are some interesting links about US Attorney Amanda Marshall who made the recommendation to challenge the Hammonds’ original sentences. She resigned in May 2015 for “health reasons” amid a scandal – she is accused of stalking a subordinate, federal prosecutor Scott Kerin. She is an Obama appointee who had no experience as a federal prosecutor when she took the job (see below*).
1) About Amanda Marshall, from the Oregonian’s list of “players” in the Hammond family case.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2016/01/militia_standoff_in_oregon_key.html
“Amanda Marshall: Former U.S. Attorney for Oregon. Marshall recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original prison sentences. By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and Steven Hammond to one year. Marshall called Hogan’s punishments “unlawful.” The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon judge’s order. The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second sentencing. At that hearing, U.S. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken ordered the pair to finish five-year terms.”
Oregon’s top federal prosecutor traveled from commune to the corner office
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/01/oregons_top_federal_prosecutor.html
2) The Scandal:
Oregon U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall resigns amid internal review, cites health issues
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_us_attorney_amanda_mars.html#incart_story_package
Federal Prosecutor Allegedly Stalked By U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall Was Under Armed Protection – Scott Kerin reportedly had a contract taken out on his life by a Mexican drug cartel.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32962-federal_prosecutor_allegedly_stalked_by_us_attorney_amanda_marshall_was_under_armed_protection.html
U.S. Justice Department looking into U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall’s relationship with employee
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/03/us_justice_department_looking.html
“This is a crucial time in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Oregon, which investigates and prosecutes federal crimes. The office is leading a sweeping influence-peddling investigation of former Gov. John Kitzhaber and his companion, Cylvia Hayes.
Marshall was the surprise choice to replace interim U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton in 2010. She had no experience as a federal prosecutor.* Rather, she was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon Department of Justice. Before that, she served as a deputy district attorney in Coos County.
Kerin is married to a fellow-federal prosecutor in the Portland office. Marshall is married to Ladd Wiles, who last May was elected Circuit Court judge in Yamhill County.”
NOTE: In the above story, her attorney, Charese Rohny, misleads the Oregonian by saying that the victim Kerin was the subject of an OIG investigation, which was untrue, as it was Marshall who OIG was investigating.