ad-free
A marketplace for speech.
82,181 Hours of Speech
help
help
513,821 Transcriptions
add title (free)
add title (free)
407 Sources
add source €0.99
add source €0.99
Search:
Newsbud
Title: The War: Mega Corporations-Federal Government vs. Independent Ranchers-Farmers
Published: 2018-01-22
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxXIB8OmN_o
Title: The War: Mega Corporations-Federal Government vs. Independent Ranchers-Farmers
Published: 2018-01-22
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxXIB8OmN_o
1/122
make your voice be heard be sure to sign and share the petition to free the Hammonds from federal prison watch Sibel Edmonds and Todd McFarlane discussed the petition to release the Hammonds at the end of this video [Music] welcome to this special edition of probable cause with news buds founder and editor Sibel Edmonds today sue bells guest is Todd McFarlane who was an attorney a rancher2/122
a writer and a political activist based in Utah todd has represented multiple ranchers and long-standing struggles with the federal government welcome to probable cause with Sibel Edmonds well welcome Todd it's been a while since we had a discussion on these very very important topics regarding the ranchers dilemma and their struggle we doubt the public support due to the of course mainstream media and the pseudo alternative3/122
media here in the United States interestingly yesterday we had a guest from Tenth Amendment Center Mike mihari and we had a great 1 hour discussion about the state's rights versus the federal government and the federal government's overreach and this interview this discussion is going to really nicely fit in with the interview be conducted yesterday be published it today recently you and a group of activists launched4/122
a petition on hammers case until recently about two years ago I didn't even know about the Hammonds case again thanks to the mainstream and pseudo alternative media outlets and as soon as I started reading about this case and then doing additional research on this I I was I was outraged it was one of those cases that I would say truly truly boiled my blood temperature you5/122
know my blood I I have to say I was first very shocked that this case did not garner really big national attention and then the second was what was taking place here in this country in the United States of America supposedly governed under the separation of powers and and the fact that most people don't know about this that alone is is warty of a separate edition6/122
for us to discuss to talk about but less start with this petition and with you telling our viewers about Hammonds cases starting from the beginning what is this Hammonds case and what is this petition and what it is that you're trying to accomplish well thank you Sibel and thanks for the opportunity to discuss this you know it's interesting because the petition it is a new petition7/122
that's true but this is an issue that's been going on for some time it was actually the impetus in other words the Hammond case the Hammond situation was the impetus for Ammon Bundy to go to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and it caused all of that happened a lot of people don't realize that the Hammond case was at the foundation of all of that because a8/122
lot of people were just like you described outrage about how the Hammonds were being treated at that point in time now a lot of people don't know the backstory and it's true that frankly even if we talk about higher profile names like the Bundy's Ammon Bundy cliven Bundy their cases lavoy finicum I think if you really did a survey I think that probably 75% of all9/122
Americans still wouldn't even know who we're talking about in other words these aren't really household names now here in the West and for people who are interested in these issues then were well-acquainted with those names but the point is the Hammonds Dwight and Steven Hammond they have much less name recognition and their case has a whole lot less recognition than these other cases but they fit10/122
into this whole puzzle in a very important way so if we go back what a boils down to is Dwight and Steven Hammond are ranchers in Harney County Oregon which is a vast swath of Oregon that's basically just mountain and desert and they own a ranch that's in close proximity the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that's where their Valley property is and they have summer range on11/122
Steen's mountain but anyway it is an area that's that's kind of garnered a lot of attention for all environmental activists and so what it boils down to in a nutshell is going back a period of time and we're talking 20 years the Hammonds have been in conflicts with the federal government based on their ranching operation and if you stand back and look at the big picture12/122
at this point in time it's quite obvious what's been going on what's been going on is that environmental activists together with the federal government have simply been trying to push them out of business to push them off the land they've acquired many of the surrounding ranches and they're grazing allotments and there's a big portion of Steen's mountain now almost two hundred thousand acres that is completely13/122
cattle free because these environmentalists together with the federal government wanted to get rid of all livestock on the mountain but the Hammonds they didn't go along with all of those things they didn't go along with getting pushed out so from a very early point in time they were kind of targeted and and they've been pushed and and they've they've really been retaliated against in a lot14/122
of ways but it all came to a head when they were ultimately charged with arson in federal court in pendleton oregon based on a fire that occurred on their ranch now the ranch consists of both private property and water often referred to as public lands enough other words federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and this fire which was a backfire they intended the15/122
only reason there was any fire there was to attend in terms of any fire that they started was this management tool of attempting to create a backfire to protect other property and for those that are familiar with that realize that backfires are often used because once you start a backfire and it burns then there's nothing there's no more fuel they're left to burn and so the16/122
fire stops there so they had started this little backfire on their own private property to try to protect their ranch and it it kind of spread a little bit and actually consumed about a hundred and forty acres of BLM land there the forage on this land which is basically just rough brush a little bit of grass that sort of thing a hundred and forty acres here17/122
in the West in a place like horny County Oregon is is not a very big area at all we're talking a hundred and forty acres in the middle of hundreds of thousands of acres even in the court case they determined that the value of the forage that it consumed was less than a thousand dollars but they were prosecuted for arson and they were tried in my18/122
opinion in a very retaliatory prosecution they were tried and ultimately and this is something a lot of people are confused about they they were not actually convicted based on the evidence after they were worn down after several weeks of trial after spending years doing this they ultimately entered into a plea agreement during the course of the trial with the federal government and agreed to plead guilty19/122
to one count of arson and they would be sentenced on that and there were some other terms that I think are crazy among other things they agreed that they would give the Bureau of Land Management a right of first refusal to buy their entire ranch if they ever decided to sell the beer the beal and the federal government insisted that that be a term of this20/122
plea agreement because they were so determined to quiet to acquire that ranch in addition to the prison sentence was defined you've probably heard but they agreed the federal government insisted on a fine of $400,000 $400,000 and then they were kind of throwing themselves on the mercy of the court to determine the prison sentence they were willing to give a right of first refusal they were willing21/122
to pay the fine in the amount of 400 which they did but in the original sentencing judge michael hogan thought that the federal mandatory minimum sentences for that particular crime in other words arson but the problem is under these federal mandatory minimum sentences there is this terrorism enhancement that caused that to go from what would otherwise maybe be a crime for which you might if if22/122
you were a first-time offender in other words if you didn't have a criminal history or anything like that you probably wouldn't be sentenced to spend any time in prison whatsoever but under these enhancements it required that the sentence be because it was federal property so that's the thing it could have happened anywhere else and you would not spend any time whatsoever but because it was federal23/122
property and they made a big deal of this in other words it burnt some federal sagebrush the minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines they were supposed to spend at least five years in prison well judge michael hogan just before he was set to retire said he found out under the conditions and circumstances of that case to be outrageous he he thought it shocked the conscience that the 7324/122
year old Rancher and his 40 year old son should spend five years in prison after paying four hundred thousand dollars and all of these other things being prosecuted and persecuted for years so he sentenced the son the younger to a full year in prison and his father to three months in prison and they both served those terms so do white Hammond went to prison for three25/122
months his son went for a year but this is the part and this is the sticking point the federal government itself appealed the sentence thought that that sentence was too light and thought that Judge Hogan had abused his discretion in giving them some leniency so it went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the Ninth Circuit turned judge Hogan's sentence and found that under these federal26/122
mandatory minimum sentencing requirements that he had no discretion that judges basically have no discretion whatsoever doesn't matter who the people are what the circumstances are if you apply these terrorism enhancements which is what they did then they would have to serve at least five years so at that point in time they were resented stand serve the full five years each and it's at that point that27/122
a lot of people started really becoming outraged about that that was late 2015 that was during the holidays of 2015 going into the new year of 2016 which is when Ammon Bundy and a number of other people went to Burns Oregon to protest this travesty that was going on with respect to the Hammonds and the offshoot of that was that they went out to the Malheur28/122
National Wildlife Refuge and occupied the refuge to try to bring attention to the Hammond case and what was going on so that's that's kind of a nutshell version Savelle well before I continue with the petition and and what the petition that you are you have just released is asking for I have questions I have so many questions I wish we had like five hours to go29/122
through these questions now this was in order to prevent the spread of fire that actually you are required to do and in in this particular case what they did actually saved so much land from from the spread of this fire is that correct that that is correct sibel the reality is that even the BLM or the Forest Service and their firefighters they all use backfires as30/122
a regular tool when fighting other fires the other thing that's really interesting to understand is that under federal law if you are a grazing a law he in other words if you have a grazing allotment like the Hammonds did it specifically says in the law that applies to that that if for some reason you start a fire that's really burning the forage that you have the31/122
right to use in other words what you're burning is the feed that your cattle would be eating and so they recognize that they recognize that this is something that you have a right to that you're simply supposed to cooperate with getting the fire put out but there's no other penalty there are no other major consequences it's not going to be treated as arson terrorism or something32/122
like death that is the law that should have applied to their situation but in this malicious prosecution that occurred based on the small acreage the federal government tried to blow it into something that it wasn't now I I'm just right now trying to think and come up with cases of mega corporations who have because of their recklessness because many of them are so greedy have caused33/122
things like environmental pollution either through oil spill you know that that we have had so many of these instances you're looking at in some cases because of fracking it's polluting and poisoning the water in this entire area I'm talking about counties after counties affecting the entire states and I can't and I don't remember a single case where the CEOs the owners the large shareholders of mega34/122
corporations causing irreparable damage from polluting the environment oil spills destroying the land going to jail under some domestic terrorism law can you think of any case any cases whatsoever where we have mega corporations CEOs and owners okay these are the people with billions of dollars for doing damage polluting poisoning people going to jail and actually serving jail sentences so often I can't think of any Sibel35/122
but I think you make a really important point and and it's an important distinction between those situations that you've described and we all know that there are a lot of those out there despite whatever precautions might be taken situations where there are serious consequences that affect a lot of other people and a lot of other natural resources in this situation there was no damage to anyone36/122
else there was no damage to it it was a renewable resource in other words four-inch ranged forage that would grow back the next year as soon as there was enough rainfall to allow it to do so and it was forged that they already had the right to use the right to consume through their livestock so no one else was damaged by this there were no other37/122
consequences but despite that they were treated on a very discriminatory retaliatory basis like you described that we haven't seen with anybody else that is engaged in much more egregious behavior whether it was intentional or not here's another question I have Todd and that has to do with because I know the mainstream media pseudo alternatives various NGOs who are funded by special interests they have been putting38/122
this environmentalism or on behalf of environmentalism twist into this case and similar cases but there are certain facts about that whole melhor area and these ranches that that has not garnered the deserve it attention that that basically counters this environmentalism spin that is being put on this cases for example based on my research I found out that there there is this private company uranium one is39/122
the foreign company it's a foreign company that has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Clinton and Clinton Foundation and have business arrangements with them and they also have business arrangements you know with with Russians they before all stuff took place they have been trying to acquire these parcels these lands from the ranchers for uranium yellowcake mining okay because this area in Oregon is really40/122
really rich in uranium so these people and I'm sure I'm almost sure that Hammonds were also approached because these this mega company this multi-billion dollar companies they came to Oregon they came to this region and they've been trying to convince ranchers to sell their lands and not only that they also have this arrangement with the feds with the federal government now how is it how is41/122
it that it's okay to give lease federal lands and these ranches being sold to this companies the private companies multi-billion dollar companies to have them mined for uranium which does from what I know there's a lot of damage to the land is that correct how can that be acceptable and there are no issues of environmentalism and activism raised in that kind of a very very obviously42/122
environmentally threatening case for the same area for the same land including the public land including the public land and yet for a rancher there to protect is whatever hundred acres and and it's an it becomes like an environmentalist issue how these two how these two things actually work together because I just see this huge discrepancy there really is civil there's a huge discrepancy and what you've43/122
just described is a huge what I would call double standard so it depends on who you are of course so if you're these little ranchers the white and Steven and Suzy Hammond out there on the land then don't have all this political clout and all the multi billion dollars that you're talking about and all the political connections and I'm going to say it like this the44/122
facade of environmental protection because that's something that I think if you really do drill down on a lot of this I think there are a lot of things that happen on the surface on the face to make it appear as if something is being done for the sake of environmental conservation but if you really drill down to see who the real powers behind it the real45/122
money behind that the real driving force behind that that there's an ulterior motive there's an ulterior motive and it really has more to do with resource exploitation and extraction and as you've said uranium mining compared to ranching especially I mean ranching is just about as is as environmentally friendly use of the resource as I can imagine because they're out there putting these renewable resources forage and46/122
water to beneficial use and these are renewable resources and they don't really pollute anything or degrade it in any way I know that a lot of people try to put their spin in their twist on it but really ranching worldwide and especially in the West is is really a very even compared to industrial farming so if we even stay in the agricultural industry or sector and47/122
you compare Western ranching in the west and and what goes on whether it's the use of chemicals and fertilizers and all of those things that happen in industrial agriculture versus the way these lands and resources are managed with livestock in the West I mean it doesn't even compare to let alone to uranium mining but they try to make these ranchers the bad guys and try to48/122
somehow just like they have done with loggers and the whole timber industry so that they can push them out and frankly my own view and there are people who say well that's just conspiracy theory and all of that sort of thing but there are big well-funded powers that really what they're trying to do is tie up these resources for their own ultimate use they want to49/122
get everybody else out of the picture that might have a use they might have a claim to the land including these ranchers and then at whatever point in time they decide they want to extract and exploit those resources they've got a green light to do it I really think that the deeper we dig down on all of these issues the more of that we will really50/122
find and that's exactly what we have been seeing based on tons of research we did during the Mount hor protests and we did come under this intense attack by the lab by the environmentalist who attributed to their ignorance because they gained thanks to the mainstream and a pseudo alternative media that are funded by the same mega cooperation interests as ministry media there there are no really51/122
differences basically to recap it this boils down to a war between mega corporations federal government against small independent ranchers and farmers because these are non issues when it comes to let's say North Dakota a pipeline issue it got the approval regardless of being native lands regardless of being you know the damage and all the spill risks all those things it was approved it got the stamp52/122
of approval because what are you talking about we are looking at trillion dollars multi-billion dollars companies and their interest their profit at stake same thing as long as these ranches the farms are mega farms mega ranches owned and operated by mega companies and their handful of that and they get to use Monsanto products they can they conclude the environment all those things these are non issues53/122
they are not environmental issues raised by the federal government nobody goes to jail nobody gets to be prosecuted however this last frontier of the of the individual family-owned farms and ranches they are target because our government in bed with mega corporations want wants to see them gone I mean we basically in so many ways I went to the to Russia right after the collapse of the54/122
Soviet Union and basically when you go to the market to shop you had one brand government owned one brand read government owned one brand bottled soda anything that you saw basically was owned by the government here in our country what I'm saying is when I go to the supermarket then I see what is happening it is basically everything is owned by three or four or five55/122
or six companies and I'm talking about crabs or Kellogg's you're looking at mega corporations that manipulate and own the entire food industry and that includes the agriculture and it has been on this path since the 1940s 1950s and this is basically the escalation and unfortunately seems to be the end of the road of the government embed with mega corporations set on eliminating any independent farmers and56/122
you know whether it's agricultural in terms of the ranchers or the vegetable farms or food three forms it is it is something that they want to put an end to and isn't it the case doesn't it really boil down to this well certainly from my perspective and from the Western perspective the perspective of farmers and ranchers on the land out in the West again small independent57/122
I'm going to use the words phrase self-sufficient farmers and ranchers out there on the land putting those resources the beneficial use they feel like there is a concerted effort to push them off the land why is that happening I think we're talking about today in this interview some of the reasons why it's happening a lot of people when they really dig into this feel like the