Anti-Government Extremism and the Oregon Standoff: A Threat to Domestic Security

Published in

Homeland Security

5 min readJan 27, 2016

By Melanie Burnham

Do you follow your own set of laws, believe in conspiracy theories, and generally think it is un-American to trust the government? How about making your own vehicle license plates and creating your own identification? If you answered yes to these questions, you may be a sovereign citizen. If that is not your exact cup of tea, but you view the government as your mortal enemy - there is something for you as well. The recently popular “Patriot” movement is calling your name.

So what is a sovereign citizen and why should you care? Sovereign citizens are individuals that believe they are above the law, twisted in their understanding of history, paranoid, and conspiracy theorists. They typically start with the credence that they are standing up for righteousness and truth in government, and then become deeper ingrained in the rhetoric and ideology of the movement. Some reports suggest that these individuals are typically in economic dire straits, have lost their jobs, homes, and may have failed at their relationships. Basically failing at life, and blaming everyone but themselves for their self-made problems.

Sovereign citizens also can be quite violent — such was the case with Jerry Kane, a divorced truck driver who lost his home to foreclosure and began crossing the country to make money and failing in his attempt to sell a debt reduction plan. He did not carry a driver’s license and did not properly register his vehicle, causing multiple traffic stops and visits to jail. He taught his son the same ideology which led to the killing of two police officers after a traffic stop where they attempted to declare their sovereignty. It was estimated by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2011 that there are about 100,000 committed sovereign believers and another 200,000 people with fringe beliefs. That’s a lot of people!

Individuals who subscribe to the “Patriot” movement, are also conspiracy minded. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Patriot movement “first emerged in 1994, a response to what was seen as violent government repression of dissident groups at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and near Waco, Texas, in 1993, along with anger at gun control and the Democratic Clinton Administration in general.” Patriots are unified in their stance against socialism, communism, and liberal politics and are perfectly fine with using force to “defend” their beliefs. Can you imagine what will happen if Bernie Sanders is elected President?

*Go home Bundy sign in Oregon via G.O.H.O.M.E.*

What does all this have to do with the Oregon Standoff? In the latest string of disputes between the federal government and the Bundy clan — Ammon Bundy (son of Cliven Bundy) and his group of supporters, was in armed dispute with the federal government at an Oregon wildlife refuge (what did those birds ever do to them?) that started Jan 2, 2016. Reports are coming in that Bundy has been arrested with one casualty in an operation that started at 4:25pm on Jan 26, 2016.

Bundy and his group of protesters are against the prosecution of two local ranchers and U.S. land management policies. They claimed control of the facility from the federal government and had four demands: release the local ranchers who were sent back to prison for setting fires to land they leased from the government, turn federal lands over to private ownership, void federal grazing permits, and allow Harney County to manage the wildlife refuge, rather than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .

Though the Bundy’s have not specifically claimed to be sovereign or part of some other extremist domestic-terrorist organization, their actions closely align with the ideology and tactics displayed by similar individuals and groups. Additionally, the Oregon standoff group has been visited by sovereign citizens, militiamen from the Patriot movement, and other groups in the recent past that have the essence of alignment.

Patches on the sleeve of a militiaman is seen at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Oregon [REUTERS]

So what should the government (local and federal) have done? The Governor of Oregon asked for the federal governments help, and the FBI was in talks with the anti-government extremists. Why were people allowed to go in and out of the facility? Is it a demonstration of white privilege when protesters with heavy armament can take over a federal facility without any immediate resistance? Did the protesters have a point? Is there a more effective way to get the government’s attention to perceived injustices other than direct action?

We want to know your thoughts.

Supporters brought firewood to occupiers at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns, Ore., on Jan. 10. PHOTO: JIM URQUHART/REUTERS

Melanie has been a Homeland Security professional for over 20 years and is currently a graduate student attending the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Homeland XYZ was developed in collaboration with members of her cohort to introduce a writing platform for students to publish, and for crowdsourcing answers to difficult Homeland Security questions.

See other articles by Homeland XYZ:

Anti-Government Extremism and the Oregon Standoff: A Threat to Domestic Security

Written by Homeland XYZ