January 3, 2016

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely. This is not a decision we've made at the last minute." Said Ammon Bundy.

Here = the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which, in Bundy's words, "has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds."

Ryan Bundy said: "The best possible outcome is that the ranchers that have been kicked out of the area, then they will come back and reclaim their land, and the wildlife refuge will be shut down forever and the federal government will relinquish such control. What we're doing is not rebellious. What we're doing is in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land."

There's also Ryan Payne,  U.S. Army veteran, who "has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move." But his "agenda" is: "to uphold the Constitution. That's all."

128 comments:

AReasonableMan said...

Because of the dramatic increases in farm productivity there is no shortage of farm land in the US. If they need more land they can buy it on the commercial market rather than freeload on the federal government.

rhhardin said...

Maybe it's sustainable living. Their carbon footprint ought to be small.

Look for an endorsement from the left.

Once written, twice... said...

Hillbilly terrorists.

Freder Frederson said...

How are these guys not terrorists? It is Federal land, not theirs.

Hagar said...

Equally "bad" news.

Meade said...

Not so well-regulated.

Bob R said...

"Terrorist." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If you are bothering to think when you use it.

Edward Lunny said...

As has been suggested, are these folks any different than the - occupy-blm-etc - folks ? Save that these folks aren't likely to burn, vandalize, loot, or otherwise destroy property. Oh, almost forgot, these people won't get glowing, slobbering, gratuitous praise and admiration from the left, the msm, and the clown in the white house.

Amanda said...

It appears that the Oafkeepers are looking to start the revolution...again. Maybe this time they won't scatter like cockroaches at the mere rumor of drones.

Ann Althouse said...

Freder Frederson said "How are these guys not terrorists? It is Federal land, not theirs."

It depends on how you define terrorism. Did you call the Occupy movement terrorists? It's a pretty old protest tradition, taking over a government place. It hasn't been the norm to call that terrorism. Where do you draw the line? Keep it politically neutral, so we can understand the meaning of the word.

AReasonableMan said...

What federal land did the occupy movement burn down? What federal building did the occupy movement seize in an armed takeover?

Paco Wové said...

The story at that link doesn't explain the genesis of this dispute. Here's a little background:

The father and son of a prominent Oregon ranching family plan to surrender at a California prison next week after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time -- the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state where the Hammonds are well-known for their generosity and community contributions. It's also playing into a long-simmering conflict between ranchers and the U.S. government over the use of federal land for cattle grazing.


It doesn't appear as though the fires burned anything but grass and trees, so four years in prison seems pretty harsh. Haven't found out anything about the judge involved yet.

The Hammonds don't seem to want anything to do with the Bundys.

Humperdink said...

FF said: How are these guys not terrorists? It is Federal land, not theirs."

In NW Pa where I live, the Allegheny National Forest (500,000 acres) was privately owned. The land was sold to the feds with the absolute understanding the subsurface (read:oil and gas) ownership would remain privately owned. Can anyone guess what happened when the private owners attempted to exercise their rights? Yep, the Feds laid downed a gauntlet that has prevented full use of their rights.

I spoke with one oil guy who said the Feds know we are right, they just have more lawyers and financial resources. They are waiting us out until they break us financially.

And people like FF wonder why the serfs have reached the boiling point.

Bruce Hayden said...

When I read the headline, I thought that it wasn't a good idea, politically. And, then I noticed that the top leftists on this site were the first posters, saying exactly what you would expect of them, and that would seemingly corroborate my thoughts. Part of the problem in my mind is that violence right now is exclusively something of the left. For them, it is perfectly fine to shoot cops and to loot and burn the poor areas of town. And, as they get in bed with the Muzzies, this seems to be increasing. So, right now, if you see a Law and Order episode where the bad guys were right wing militia types, or someone tries to blame much of anything on such (which some of our resident leftists have done), you know exactly what they are doing - projection of their own tolerance and acceptance of violence on their opposition, and attempting to associate violence with them, when, right now, it is almost exclusively on the left.

Right now, we have an election coming up, and that is all that most on the right need to keep from going to the mattresses. It may be different if Herself, Hillary were to win the election. General consensus is that she can't win fairly and legally, which means that if she does, then she did indeed cheat, or, realistically, cheated more than usual, or at least usual until Obama ran. We have come to expect that at a national level, Republicans have to actually win by a couple of percent, before they can actually win elections. So, if she does win, then I think you can expect some right wing civil disobedience, if not militia type activities that the Bundys seem so enamored with. Which is why I think that these idiots are moving too quickly.

Ann Althouse said...

AReasonableMan said... "What federal land did the occupy movement burn down? What federal building did the occupy movement seize in an armed takeover?"

The sheriff's statement (at my link) says: "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...."

I'm not seeing any burning or use of arms in this incident. So how do your questions follow from mine? I'm assuming you meant to answer my question with your questions.

Tom said...

The natural right of rebellion is outside the US Constitution. You can't claim to rebel against the government and be acting in accordance with the Constitution. And, the right of rebellion comes with consequences - you lose, you die. So it had better be worth it.

Ann Althouse said...

I certainly want these characters kicked of the land, just as I wanted the Wisconsin protesters not to stay overnight in the state capitol and I wanted the Occupy encampments removed.

My questions in the comments have been about the eagerness to call these people "terrorists." What is your aim and why do you think your definition of the term is a good one and that you are applying it aptly (in the sense that you'd label lefties as readily as righties)?

Bob Boyd said...

'Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone in his group/organization speaks for the Hammond Family, Dwight Hammond or Steven Hammond. In addition, I wish to report to you that, as recently ordered by the District Court, District of Oregon, Dwight Hammond and Steven Hammond intend to voluntarily report to the designated federal facility on January 4, 2016, as required.'
- Hammonds' public statement issued by their lawyer in a letter to the Sheriff dated December 11, 2015, that:"

Tom said...

After further review - I retract my earlier comment. They're not in rebellion - only civil disobedience. And 4 years seems stuff

Fritz said...

Burning grasslands is the traditional Indian way of keeping grasslands clear of encroaching trees and weeds. When I lived in Oregon, the grass seed fields of the Willamette Valley were burned every fall to kill the weeds.

The inequality between the amount of land the Federal government owns in different states is staggering. As little as 0.4% in Rhode Island and Connecticut and 84.5% in Nevada. Oregon is a mere 53.1%, while Wisconsin is 5.6%. You can't tell me that the differences between Wisconsin and Oregon warrant that kind of discrepancy. The US could certainly solve it's deficit and probably it's debt problem by carefully selling off the land it owns that is already being put to productive use by the private sector. And the new owners would probably treat the land better, having a vested interest. But that would put a lot of federal bureaucrats out of a job, so it will never happen.

President Obama could head this off by pardoning the Hammonds. Anyone think he's up for that?

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
What federal land did the occupy movement burn down? What federal building did the occupy movement seize in an armed takeover?



1/3/16, 8:26 AM

Think of it as a new version of the Occupy Movement.

Ann Althouse said...

From April 2014: "Bundy supporters party, welcome ‘domestic terrorist’ label":

Wearing a cowboy hat and with a copy of the U.S. Constitution poking from his shirt pocket, controversial rancher Cliven Bundy on Friday asked dozens of supporters of his cattle-grazing feud with federal land managers what they thought of U.S. Sen. Harry Reid calling them “domestic terrorists.”

“Are you guys domestic terrorists?” he asked the crowd gathered around a stage near the north bank of the Virgin River.

The supporters, many wearing name tags that said “domestic terrorist,” erupted with cheers and applause.

“That’s what I thought. I thought Harry was right,” said the 67-year-old Bundy, who was accompanied by armed escorts.


He made the statement before a “Patriot Party” that started at 5 p.m. with music by Madison Rising and Ron Keel, who sang with Black Sabbath briefly in 1984. A party atmosphere among a few hundred people grew as more supporters trickled in. Some people were cooling off in the river while dozens of armed militia members wearing camouflaged fatigues patrolled in and around the area.

Phil 3:14 said...

But Professor they're white!

(And they wear cowboys hats. That says something doesn't it?)

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Lots of things in nature follow a bell curve. Perhaps revolutionary acts against tyrannical governments do too. If so, consider this the left tail forming.

Paul said...

Nope, they ain't 'terrorist', as I see no murders done, no burning of buildings, nothing but occupying a public building. Does that make it ok what they have done? No.

To many people equalate worry with terror. The equalate strong objection to their ideas with terror. They think anyone who disagrees with them frightens them, thus terrorize them.

Either they are snowflakes or liars. I think they are both.

buwaya puti said...

General attitude among rural people ranching in CA and southern OR is that the Feds want to drive them off their land. The BLM seems to hate ranchers anywhere. And this is not a question of administrations, but an institutional thing embedded in the bureaucracy.
Fundamentally same sort of thing as the Bundys in Nevada.
This is a broader conflict than one case of rural injustice.
The BLM needs a thorough purge. Like all Federal agencies, it is out of control and unaccountable.

Bob Boyd said...

A little background on the Hammond case:

"The father and son of a prominent Oregon ranching family plan to surrender at a California prison next week after a judge ruled they served too little time for setting fires that spread to government lands they leased to graze cattle.
Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires."

"The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time -- the father three months, the son one year."

"in an opinion piece published this month in the Burns Times Herald, Oregon's U.S. attorney, Bill Williams, said the government has never called the ranchers terrorists, and prosecutors acknowledged they were good people who contributed to their community."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/01/oregon-ranchers-may-return-to-prison-in-land-fight-with-feds.html

Edward Lunny said...

"
My questions in the comments have been about the eagerness to call these people "terrorists." What is your aim and why do you think your definition of the term is a good one and that you are applying it aptly (in the sense that you'd label lefties as readily as righties)? "

Demonization, otherism, a deliberate attempt to attribute violence without the need for there to have been actual violence.

The blm, occupy and other lib groups have committed acts of violence.
Also, applying the "terrorist-terrorism " label immediately prioritizes the incident.

Interesting how easily the terrorist label is applied domestically compared to the outright denial of out of country incidents by Obama and the left. But, then, Obama and the left have always been eager to attack domestic opponents without regard for facts or civil and constitutional rights.

Hmmmm, maybe those out of country folks and domestic jihadis aren't the opponents or enemies of the left and Obama at all.

Amanda said...

How many lefties open carried weapons in protests? If BLM or Occupy protesters would have open carried we would've seen police shooting first and asking questions later. The double standard reeks.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am spending more and more time in the rural west in this country - in my case, NW MT. We have developed what my partner calls a male gossip group in town, where the age ranges from mid-50s up into the late 70s. Near the next town to the east, an old cowboy actually has a pot bellied stove and chairs around it for their comparable group. Not there yet, and may not get there for awhile, with the local Subway being shoehorned into the gas station that we use.

In any case, one of the interesting things I noted was the raging almost hate from pretty much all of the men there for the federal govt. There, amidst the towering evergreens, it was the Forest Service that was at the top of the list (though ATF earned their fair share of obrium, esp. being maybe two hours from Ruby Ridge). I had worked with the forest service for most of a decade, and thought them somewhere between well intentioned and benign. The problem back in that part of MT (probably most of MT west of the Continental Divide) was that the FS had shut down the timber industry. The town we live by had lost 2 of 3 lumber mills, and the county maybe 2/3 of the dozen or so it used to have. Know one guy who had spent over 20 years at one before it shut down, is driving a trash truck in his 70s because he lost his pension there. And why was the lumber industry shut down there? Because a bunch of mostly east coast, urban environmentalists didn't like it. People who mostly have never been closer to these forests than maybe 2,000 miles. And, in MT, they shut down an industry that had employed people for generations. Making things worse, instead of allowing timbering, fires were suppressed, to the extent that now, there are decades of fuel on the ground, just waiting to be ignited. And, much of W MT and N ID had air quality rated poor because of all the fires burning. There was a month or so last summer where my partner (and, therefore I) could not walk outside without a mask (which she doesn't like).

One of the nice things though about having FS so close to town, and a lot of it, is that you don't have to join a shooting club to practice shooting (which is why I put more than 2,000 rounds through my Glock last summer). About the start of hunting season, I ran into a FS employee at the turnoff where I often went shooting. She was there taking a survey of that part of that National Forest. We got to talking (it was a pretty boring job, due to the lack of traffic), and one of the things that she told me was that almost all of the traffic in the Forest she works for is fairly local - much from in the county, and much of the rest from west of the Continental Divide in MT and ID. All those Easterners who are the ones telling the FS how to run their forests don't actually use those western forests that much. Almost never. Maybe 5%. Rather, they were used almost exclusively by the people living around the forests, thousands of miles away.

The other thing to remember is that the hand of the federal govt. has grown increasingly heavy over the century or so since the land was truly settled. For example, a lot of people use wood heat, and get their firewood from the NF around them. This has been going on well more than a century, but it was only a decade or so ago that they needed to pay for FS permits for the wood. And, only a couple years since they started limiting such. Ditto for Christmas trees.

Crimso said...

So the Bundy boys have acted stupidly. Will Obama also?

buwaya puti said...

This isn't farmland its ranchland.
And in all these cases its historically been ranchland, since the 19th century.
And for the people involved, its their land. There is no way to sell ranchland under threat by the BLM and buy similarly productive land elsewhere, unencumbered by the BLM. Its a dead loss. The whole thing can be and has been construed as an illegal taking, but for some reason the courts have disagreed, and permit the Federal agencies to engage in all sorts of harassment in order to grab land, which they have.
This (the history of the agencies vs the ranchers) is as clear a case of tyrannous impunity as anything in US history.
The ranchers involved can be written off as backwards hillbillies, by the same people who would defend indigenous peoples rights. The degree of hypocrisy is astonishing.
BTW, these are THE cowboys of myth and legend. The fantasy is real.
I believe the whole thing is ultimately a political-cultural jihad on the part of the bureaucracies that object to American iconography, being as these sorts hate their own country with a passion. The cowboy must disappear.

Bob Boyd said...

More Hammond backstory:

"The two were convicted three years ago and served time, but a judge ruled the terms were too short. Federal lawyers prosecuted the ranchers under an anti-terrorism law that they say required a five-year minimum sentence."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_RANCHING_STANDOFF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-01-11-50-02

buwaya puti said...

Northern California's economy (North of the Bay Area) was ruined decades ago when logging was effectively banned (the spotted owl, etc.).
The trees were not disappearing, it wasnt mainly old growth.
Besides all sorts of other regulation, the entire economy of the North state is paralyzed, and people there largely live, directly or indirectly off government payments.
Mississippi has a more dynamic economy and a higher standard of living.

Hagar said...

The previous Bundy excitement was used by the media to cover up the machinations of Harry Reid & Sons, LLP on behalf of their "alternative energy" clients. The real story was about Solyndra type corruption in that business, and the Reids highly improperly using the Federal Gov't to facoilitate it.

Fen said...

There's also Ryan Payne, U.S. Army veteran, who "has claimed to have helped organize militia snipers to target federal agents in a standoff last year in Nevada. He told one news organization the federal agents would have been killed had they made the wrong move."

This is a result of the Weaver shooting and Waco.

The BLM sure got alot less jackbooty once they realized there were snipers in overwatch.

Fernandinande said...

Blogger Bruce Hayden said...
In any case, one of the interesting things I noted was the raging almost hate from pretty much all of the men there for the federal govt.


That's pretty typical anywhere in the West.

Utah Commissioner of Year participates in BLM* protest
"RECAPTURE CANYON, UTAH – Paradoxically[sic], the Utah Association of Counties recently named a man convicted of conspiracy in federal court in May to be their County Commissioner of the Year."

+
Federal Land Ownership: Is It Constitutional?
(Answer: sometimes, but not as they do currently)
+

*Note to Easterners: "BLM" = Bureau of Land Management.

buwaya puti said...

Thinking on it further, with an old country perspective -
In the Philippines there have always been controversies over land ownership, and the fact of the state oppressing people out of their land isn't unknown. This sort of thing has driven many a man into the hills as a rebel. However, in modern times, even in that third world country, something like what the BLM has been pulling on Americans would violate the consensus view of peoples rights, and would be a national outrage. In the Philippines something like the Hammond case could be a national scandal.
You would have protesting nuns, college rallies supporting the oppressed peasants, politicians thundering, and the bureaucracy WOULD back down.

Jason said...



So the U.S. Attorney for Oregon says the U.S. never called them 'terrorists.'

So what law were they prosecuted and sentenced under? "Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996."

Oh.


So what did they do?
When their home was threatened by a wildfire, they alerted the fire department and set a backfire on their own land to contain it. It worked, but the fire accidentally spread to federal land. The Hammonds put out the fire themselves.

For this they were prosecuted under an anti-terrorism law.

Thank god it wasn't wetlands. The U.S. Attorney would have recommended the Death Penalty.

Jason said...

So if the U.S. Attorney in Oregon had gone back in time to 1996 and told Congress, "We are planning to use the Anti-Terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act you are planning to use to prosecute two ranchers in Oregon who set a backfire to save their homes that accidentally spread to adjacent federal wilderness. Yes, they put out the fire themselves, but we think it's worth putting two men in jail for it for a MINIMUM 5 years and possibly life, anyway," what do you think Congress, Gingrich, et. al., would have told him?

Hagar said...

In Santa Fe, there is a whole little coterie of lawyers who make their living from donations to a little environmental association or other. They don't get rich, but can set their own hours, and its a great way to meet women and get laid.

Michael said...

Amanda

You use the straw man argument poorly. And you will have a different view of the police if you ever need them. Plus, lefties don't have guns, they leave their protection to the rough men who permit them to sleep well. Plus, Occupy and BLM operate in no-carry states or states where the gun laws are very strict.

BTW, how is the Occupy thing going? I don't see them in NY any more.

mtrobertslaw said...

Amanda, you must be more careful in how you frame your question. There is a great difference between open carry and concealed carry. I think the question you meant to ask was "How many lefties carried concealed weapons in protests".

Yancey Ward said...

President Obama could head this off by pardoning the Hammonds. Anyone think he's up for that?

I had exactly the same thought, and I would say that he won't do it.

Rusty said...

According to the broadly written law we're all terrorists.

gbarto said...

I love the respect for federal property from some of the commenters. If only they had similar respect for private property.

The first great Democrat President, Thomas Jefferson, acquired the Louisiana Purchase and turned it loose for private settlement, believing the best way to prevent the emergence of a new aristocracy was to make every man a landholder.

It's nice to have some national park land, and I can see Teddy Roosevelt's reasons for wanting to preserve the environment. But there is something wrong when we cease to celebrate people having a place of their own while simultaneously demanding action be taken to keep citizens away from federal lands. That land does not belong to the government. It belongs to we the people. Do we the people really need to hold so much land in common and take it out of productive use?

Melissa said...

@Ann. The Symbionese Liberation Army were left-wing terrorists. So were the Weathermen and the Red Brigades and the people who killed Aldo Morrow.They threatened to kill people, advertized that they had the means to do it and were willing to do it in an organized fashion, all as a point of pride, which seems to fit Clive Bundy and Co.

The Occupy movement did not do do that as a matter of policy. Neither has Black Lives Matter. As far as I know neither did the people who occupied the capitol in Wisconsin. Participants were not, as a matter of policy, encouraged to show up at demonstrations with guns, in fact quite the opposite. Rioting, vandalizing, destroying property, while I would not defend them in general, are very different from using a lethal weapon to demonstrate your point of view.

If the Bundys had a sit-in at the forest service office, or the nearest federal court house, WITHOUT guns or threatening to use guns (ie take human life), they would not be terrorists, even if theywouldsed graffiti, broke window or destroyed property. (Which I am not advocating.) Like the Tea Party, despite the odd member who would show up at an event with a big gun just to prove they could.

With guns they are terrorists. In my opinion.

Destroying human life, or threatening to, is orders of magnitude worse than destroying property. People are more important than things.

YoungHegelian said...

Needless to say, my lefty FB feed went ape with this late yesterday, giving every act the worst possible interpretation. So, I looked into the details by pulling up the local news stations rather than ThinkProgress. I gotta say, the federal government agencies don't come off looking too good here.

First, how often are men charged, sentenced, and serve their time only be to have some judge, some time after they've released been, decide, "Oh, you're going back to jail. I don't think your sentence was long enough." I'm sorry, but what the fuck is that about?

Secondly, the government decided to charge the Hammonds under anti-terrorism provisions for their supposed act of arson. Ranchers are now terrorists for de-weeding land by burning, a common practice out West, if the feds decide they don't like you. What? Come again? One of the articles I read said had a local saying that there was a specific kind of weed that, if left uncontrolled to spread, essentially made the land ungrazeable. If this is true or not, I don't know, but, considering the government's other behaviors, it might have certainly been the case that the feds were trying to force the Hammonds into a "lose the use of the land" situation by preventing them from de-weeding.

Birkel said...

Amanda does not believe throwing rocks through store windows and looting businesses is as bad as exercising a Right that is recognized in the Constitution.

That is all one needs to know about the Left.

AReasonableMan said...

buwaya puti said...
... but for some reason the courts have disagreed


I am guessing that the laws of the land might be involved in this mystery.

Birkel said...

And here comes Melissa to inform us the bricks used to smash store windows in Ferguson, MO were not lethal weapons.

The ignorance of matters martial is staggering.

garage mahal said...

Bu bu what about groups like BLM, who never took over a federal building armed to the teeth? Answer that for me geniuses.

AReasonableMan said...

Ann Althouse said...
I'm not seeing any burning or use of arms in this incident. So how do your questions follow from mine? I'm assuming you meant to answer my question with your questions.


I was going to answer this but Melissa did a perfectly good job already. It is quite clearly a false equivalence. No burning of federal lands as the Hammonds did, no armed take-over of federal buildings with designated snipers like the Bundys.



YoungHegelian said...

@Melissa,

Rioting, vandalizing, destroying property, while I would not defend them in general, are very different from using a lethal weapon to demonstrate your point of view.

Says the lady who's never had her business burnt out from under her.

That somehow rioting & mayhem, as occurred in Seattle & almost in DC, when the WTO met there is less "violent" than men who have a constitutional & state right to open carry show up armed but do not use those weapons, is, well, rather a strange point of view. If this mess turns into a mass shoot-out, then your point of view will be validated, but it hasn't yet.

As for BLM, there has been far too much white-washing (no pun intended) of an organization which has at least twice publicly demonstrated chanting for death to the police (Minneapolis & Manhattan). The left denies the insanity on its own side so much it no longer recognizes that it do so.

Eustace Chilke said...

But his "agenda" is: "to uphold the Constitution. That's all."

You seem to assume that duly constituted authority will uphold the constitution. This has been a bad bet for about 150 years. I can't say that I have much affinity with the Bundys. With the feds, none. If you're questioning motives there's a superabundance of targets here.

garage mahal said...

I hope no wildlife is harmed exterminating these filthy cockroaches.

Rusty said...

Hiow many murders were committed by the occupy movement , Malissa?

Birkel said...

Rusty,
Don't forget the rapes. There were lots of rapes perpetrated by OWS.

Birkel said...

And "garage mahal" comes in to affirm that Leftists consider people they have never met but who have different political views sub-human.

Middle school football heroes everywhere confirm that "garage mahal" is an ass hole.

Shouting Thomas said...

ARM is certainly no "reasonable" man, is he?

I have no opinion on this matter because it doesn't affect me, as it does not affect ARM either.

So why has he formed an opinion? Clearly, he's formed an opinion because of the anti-white hatred that now consumes the hard left. He's formed an opinion solely for the purposes of finding an equivalent "terrorist" among Christian whites to offset Muslim terrorists.

ARM is nuts. He's vicious. Hatred of white Christians is what motivates him. He's searching endlessly for demonstration political issues to vent his hatred, even if the issue is arcane and of no importance to him.

A vicious racist searching relentlessly for demonstration issues to feed his hatred is anything but "reasonable."

Dr Weevil said...

A supposedly Reasonable Man wrote (11:35am):
"I am guessing that the laws of the land might be involved in this mystery."

I am guessing that ARM hasn't even thought about double jeopardy. How the Hell is it legal or constitutional to send men to to jail for a longer term, when they have already served their time for what is obviously the same crime? That's double jeopardy, and it's shocking that it doesn't bother ARM or Amanda or any of our other leftists enough to even admit that it's a problem. I guess they assume (rightly) that no right-winger would dream of locking up a leftie twice for the same crime.

Having read what the Hammonds did that they were jailed for, I'm wondering why the EPA employees who poisoned a river in Colorado (I think it was) aren't facing charges that would put them in jail for life. Well, not really wondering: I know the answer. Federal employees can screw people over spectacularly without going to jail, or being fined, or losing their jobs, or being inconvenienced in any way. And that's just fine with the lefties here. I wonder: do they all have federal jobs? It would explain a lot.

Mac McConnell said...

First question should be why did the US Gov not turn over public lands to the Western states after becoming states like they always had prior?

Here's the background on this case.
http://www.thefencepost.com/news/18847695-113/two-members-of-oregons-hammond-family-to-serve

How is the occupation of an empty closed for the winter wildlife center terrorism? What, their parked in the lot and using the public restrooms. It's like Ferguson all over again!

Static Ping said...

Terrorism is about actions intended to terrorize a population into submission.

Terrorism does not require guns. For that matter it does not require actual violence, though at least the threat of violence is usually required. Bluffs only work so much.

People with guns are not terrorists without some aspect of terror. Protesting with guns is not necessarily terrorism. If you think guns are so frightening that their existence in your presence is terrorizing, I would suggest you seriously consider if your fears are rational or not.

Terrorism is not actions by people you don't like just because you don't like them.

Without further details I have no opinion on whether this is terrorism. At the moment it seems fairly benign.

My opinion of the Hammonds case is the original punishment was unjust given the damage suffered was insignificant and the law applied was in violation of the spirit of the law, the recall of the Hammonds to serve more time after they had been released is cruel, and this is not the sort of government that I want to represent me both because it reeks of corruption and it seems like the feds should have better things to do.

Shouting Thomas said...

This thread is a tribute to the stupidity of the internet.

Note how this issue, which really is of little consequence to anybody outside the jurisdiction in which it occurs, has caused every respondent to line up according to their usual assigned political allegiance.

There's something truly evil in this.

Every news item in the world must be flogged for partisan gain. Stupid and evil.

Dr Weevil said...

garage mahal writes (11:52am):

"I hope no wildlife is harmed exterminating these filthy cockroaches."

Looks like GM just went full Nazi: calling humans cockroaches as an excuse for exterminating them. That doesn't make him a cockroach, but it does make him a contemptible human being, who ought to be shunned by all decent humans.

n.n said...

Pack the people in urban ghettos and the problem goes away.

Also, as in Nevada, it clears the way to occupy large tracts of land necessary for establishment of solar and windmill farms, and other low density energy producers, at the expense of flora, fauna, and people too.

Finally, there is a faith-based constitutional rite under the quasi-religious pro-choice doctrine that protects premeditated abortion of a wholly innocent human life with scalpels, not threatened abortion with guns.

This enterprise was poorly planned.

Ann Althouse said...

"Note how this issue, which really is of little consequence to anybody outside the jurisdiction in which it occurs, has caused every respondent to line up according to their usual assigned political allegiance."

Not me.

Jason said...

I hope no wildlife is harmed exterminating these filthy cockroaches.

This is why we need a 2nd amendment: So Americans can put a check on the power of people who regard fellow Americans, or any human being, as "filthy cockroaches."

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.

AReasonableMan said...

Shouting Thomas said...
So why has he formed an opinion? Clearly, he's formed an opinion because of the anti-white hatred that now consumes the hard left. He's formed an opinion solely for the purposes of finding an equivalent "terrorist" among Christian whites to offset Muslim terrorists.


I am curious how your mangled thought processes managed to bring both race and religion into this discussion. The occupy movement was largely white, as are these nitwits. None of them were/are muslims.

Seeing Red said...

I love the comment from Insty! It's been established over the paSt few years that it's perfectly fine to occupy public property for when you're working for social justice.

Rusty said...

I on't wait for Malissa's reply since she has no moral leg to stand on. This is no different than the occupation of the Wisconsin State House in protest of state laws.I would go further to say that this stand is more important for social justice since two people are in prison for something that would be considered a misdemeanor at the state level. Be careful Malissa. The next domestic terrorist could be you.

Jason said...

Look on the bright side! At least libtards finally found some terrorists they're willing to "exterminate!"

Birkel said...

I have lined up against Leftist stupidity.

And I reject the notion that Leviathan's overreach, demonstrated by BLM, is unrelated to me personally. Unchecked bureaucrats are a problem. And they need to face serious pushback in many areas.

n.n said...

of little consequence to anybody outside the jurisdiction

That should be the case, but the precedents are set, and people are becoming increasingly proactive. When everything is subject to negotiation and interpretation, then the market has necessarily been reduced to soft (e.g. emotional appeals, semantic games, media indoctrination) and hard leverage (e.g. [class] diversity schemes, social disenfranchisement, financial extortion).

Shouting Thomas said...

Yes, prof, you are correct. You have not engaged here in the usual ritual.

Happy New Year!

Hagar said...

The BLM is specifically mandated to maintain the land for the common good. That is not what they are doing.

Amanda said...

"If provoked they will defend themselves" statement from armed protesters. They are provoking the Federal government and if provoked they will defend themselves. See how that works?

Michael said...

Garage

Do you know how to call your enemies cockroaches in German? That is what they called the Jews and, oh, they used the word exterminate as well.

I expect you will be a very low level brown shirt fucking up people in your shitty little town. You won't go far. As has been demonstrated.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Throwing rocks and bottles at lines of policemen isn't as bad as simply HAVING a firearm that you might possibly/could maybe/haven't every but COULD use to injure someone. Obviously.
Molotov cocktails are peaceful protest signalers, everyone knows that.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I think a hearty "careful what you wish for" admonishment all around is appropriate.
The Occupy types (and people who squatted in foreclosed houses, etc) did their best to legitimize that tactic to advance their political/ideological agenda and were moderately successful in convincing the public that it was a valid method.
These Bundy folks are similarly using a tactic (occupying a federal facility with an implicit threat of violence if forcefully opposed) to protest and advance their political/ideological agenda. They'll certainly receive less favorable Media coverage, but it's possible they will be moderately successful in convincing the public that this is a valid method.

What happens next? The Occupy people didn't face very harsh consequences, and one result of that is that others got the message that acting in the Occupy way was ok/was an option. Maybe the Bundy group's actions now are partially a result of learning that lesson (maybe not, I dunno). My question is what happens if the Bundy group is successful?
I thought cities acquiescing (in part) to the demands of protest groups who were backed by rioters were setting a dangerous precedent. People who want this kind of "outside of the normal channels" action to successfully bring about change in the normal power structure should give at least a little thought to what that success will mean for the future--next time the people using the tactic you legitimized/proved would work might not be people you want to "win."

Bob Boyd said...

Obama is prepared to issue executive orders on gun control next week, saying Congress has refused to act.
Now these knuckleheads in Oregon are playing right into his hand.
The timing is awfully damn good for Obama. It isn't difficult to imagine federal informants/provocateurs infiltrated into the ranks of this impulsive bunch.
I sympathize with the ranchers and understand what is pissing these people off, but this is not the way to use the Hammond story to fight government overreach, especially since the Hammonds don't even want to be associated with it.

Birkel said...

So, put Amanda down on the side of Democrats who would use state power to oppress a minority.

Shall you turn dogs on them, Amanda? Perhaps fire hoses?

Ever have Democrats chosen this way.

n.n said...

Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist

Unfortunately, without observable, reproducible principles, liberalism is a degenerative ideology.

Classical liberalism reconciled individual and groups rights. It acknowledged and sought to mitigate the threat posed by monopolies and opposed their establishment. However, it was insufficient, and in order to avoid the worst excesses of individual corruption, it needed to be tempered by a suitable religious/moral philosophy. With the state establishment of a quasi-religious pro-choice cult, this check on people's primal orientations and behaviors has been circumvented.

So, today, we have resumed abortion rites, extended life through clinical cannibalism, deprived people of basic human rights through the confiscation of land, and promoted a primitive cult under a "green" parody that disrupts large tracts of land, and the flora and fauna therein, on an ongoing basis.

Seeing Red said...

The EPA tried to control everyone's rainwater. They are not benign. Did anyone watch that BS coming out of San Fran/Sacramento last year about managing everyone's living spaces? TIIC are trying to impose regional rules. A nasty piece of work explained by a nasty female. Some people started getting a clue. And if you wanted to vote no...not an option. Your options were pre-selected and they were all favor for at least a piece of the pen. There was no option for go back to the drawing board this is stupid.

Insty is covering what's going on in Rahmville. The blue model is in serious trouble, no shit, don't listen to conservatives who saw that decades ago, Other People's Money....Obamas not carrying on a war on the suburbs and rural areas for no reason. The model is failing, let's go regional since the burbs have the money and less power. Rahm made a comment about absorbing the collar counties at the beginning or before his first run. Obama didn't float 15 regions for nothing.

Seeing Red said...

Dead Old White Skaveowners rule! We aren't worthy of a Constitution.

Amanda said...

As Indian Country Today Media Network previously reported, the land the occupiers are claiming as “theirs” is actually land that the federal government previously stole from the Northern Paiute tribe. The Paiutes used to own 1.5 million acres of land, but have now been relegated to a reservation amounting to just 750 acres in Burns, Oregon, where the Bundy militia is currently engaged in an armed standoff.

“President U.S. Grant established the Maiheur Indian Reservation for the Northern Paiute in 1872. It is no coincidence that the historical reservation shares a name with the Maiheur National Wildlife Refuge, site of the current armed standoff.”


"Irony lost."

Rusty said...


Blogger Amanda said...
"If provoked they will defend themselves" statement from armed protesters. They are provoking the Federal government and if provoked they will defend themselves. See how that works?

Uh huh.
So protesting is provoking retaliation.

Amanda said...

" I don’t want to dwell too much on the rationales and motivations for these domestic terrorists any more than I would for the people who fight for ISIS or Al Qaeda. It’s always the same thing: a group of armed, angry men believe that the Big Bad Western Government is infringing on their right to do whatever it is they very well please—whether it’s to the environment, or to minorities, women, people of different religious groups, etc. Undereducated, armed angry men are often upset at Western governments for upsetting their private power apple carts because in their small, solipsistic worlds they’re very used to being lords of their manors and local enforcers of bigoted frontier justice. That’s as true of Afghan militants in the Taliban as it is of rural Montana militiamen. The only difference is in the trappings, the external presence of the rule of law and the degree of violence involved.

What’s more interesting to focus on is the response to the incident so far. As with ISIS, the Bundy clowns are actively seeking a confrontation with the big bad wolf of Big Western Government. They believe that an active confrontation will spark a movement that will lead to the overthrow of Big Brother. So far, especially after the incidents at Ruby Ridge and Waco, American leaders have been disinclined to give those opportunities to the domestic militiaman terrorists. Cliven Bundy and his miscreants got away with a wide range of crimes due to the forbearance of federal officials."


The same mentality, but somehow acceptable to some on the right because they are white and wear cowboy hats. Yahoos with guns and a fantasy of starting a revolution.

richard mcenroe said...

How many years did Eric Holder spend in prison for the armed takeover of the Columbia U's President's office in the 60's?
https://roycelerwick.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/download-17_thumb.jpg?w=356&h=277

Rusty said...

Amanda.
I'd like you to meet garage. garage. Amanda.
You two have soooo much in common. Are any of you on birth control?

Paco Wové said...

Even more background (thanks, Wikipedia):

The ranchers had already served shorter sentences because the federal judge originally overseeing their case said the five-year minimum requirement “would shock the conscience.”

The Hammonds were subject to re-sentencing because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those original prison terms for igniting fires in 2001 and 2006 as too lenient.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, found that a five-year term would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it’s “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.”

Dwight Lincoln Hammond, who was only convicted of the 2001 fire, received three months in prison, while his son was sentenced to one year, followed by three years of supervised release for each man.

Federal prosecutors challenged those sentences, and the 9th Circuit agreed that judges don’t have the “discretion to disregard” such requirements.

The appeals court rejected claims by the ranchers’ defense attorney that the federal arson statute was intended to punish terrorism, rather than burning to remove invasive species or improve rangeland.

At the Oct. 7 re-sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken said the ranchers cannot disregard the law in regard to setting fires on BLM property.

“You don’t have the right to make decisions on public lands when they’re not yours,” she said.

Aiken compared the situation to “eco-terrorism” cases in which activists damaged property in reaction to environmental decisions with which they disagreed.

“They didn’t necessarily like how the government was handling things, either,” she said.

Similarly, people who violate hunting and fishing regulations are also subject to sanctions, Aiken said.

“The rules are there for a reason,” she said.

Aiken said she would use discretion in sentencing the Hammonds if she could, but that wasn’t a possibility given the mandatory minimums and the jury’s decision to convict them of arson.

...

Frank Papagni, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted the Hammonds, said the ranchers should be subject to the five-year sentence but disagreed with recommendations from the U.S. Probation Office that they receive even longer sentences.

The U.S. Probation Office said that Dwight Hammond should serve five years and three months, while Steven Hammond should serve six year and six months years.


Note that the Hammonds have already paid a $400,000 fine.

Judge Aiken is a Clinton appointee whose late husband was at one time the chairman of the Oregon Democratic Party, for what that's worth.

Amanda said...

Hammond family wants nothing to do with the Bundy takeover of federal building and protest. "The family’s lawyer told KOIN that the family is not involved with the occupation of the federal building. “Neither Ammon Bundy nor anyone within his group/organization speak for the Hammond Family,” W. Alan Schroeder said in a letter."

Thorley Winston said...

I agree with HoodlumDoodlum, each time this happens without real consequence to the lawbreakers, there is someone waiting in the wings getting ready to ratchet it up to the next level. So far it hasn’t gotten to bloodshed (yet) but now that these idiots have brought and threatened to use firearms, it may only be a matter of time.

Paco Wové said...

Amanda: it's "Malheur", not "Maiheur". A French word.

Birkel said...

Thorley Winston,
Leviathan cannot be sated. What would you do when it turns it's vast antipathy toward you?

Seeing Red said...

I wasn't aware Native Americans had titles to land before the White Man came.

Static Ping said...

To discuss Amanda's last three links:

1. Actually, I would tend to prefer that the Paiutes owned the land over the federal government. They would probably do a better job. That said, in 1872 the Ottoman Empire still controlled a sizable chunk of the Balkans, Algeria was part of France, Korea was still a "hermit kingdom," and the US flag only had 37 stars. Not seeing the relevance. I do see the irony, but if you go back far enough historical irony is cheap. Can we work the Etruscans into this? That would be cool.

2. The Washington Monthly piece describes the Hammonds as terrorists, despite the fact that other than being prosecuted under a terrorism law that most certainly was not intended for the particulars here, they clearly are not terrorists to the admission of all relevant parties. So the author destroys his own credibility by the second paragraph.

3. Yes, we know that the Hammonds do not want to be associated with the Bundy Militia. That point was brought up in this very thread 8 hours before your posting by Bob Boyd. Thanks for reading and being part of the discussion.

Amanda said...

Paco Wove,

The Indians in the region call themselves Maiheur. Do a little research.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/03/bundy-militia-musters-again-over-paiute-land-162939

garage mahal said...

That is what they called the Jews and, oh, they used the word exterminate as well.

Oh yeah.

Original Mike said...

I "love" how lefties are always reaching to label anybody they can "terrorists". It's a variant of a favorite lefty argument: "both sides do it", even when both sides don't.

Paco Wové said...

Amanda, nowhere in that article you linked does it say the Indians in the region call or called themselves "Maiheur". They're Northern Paiute. The article does repeatedly misspell "Malheur" as "Maiheur", though. Hint: google for "Maiheur" and notice how all the hits are for "Malheur".

Birkel said...

"garage mahal" is a fascist, willing to use the state to punish those who have better lives than does he. He would be a petty tyrant if only he had power.

Recognizing the cruelty and baseness of the Left is a necessary prerequisite to countering their mendacity.

buwaya puti said...

Everything is escalating.
At some point, there will indeed be domestic terrorism, and it will come with an extremely large class of sympathisers, the sea in which guerillas swim. The last time this happened, on a very small scale, back in the Weatherman/SLA days it was small because the sympathiser network was small and sparse.
Muslim terrorism in the US will never amount to much for the same reason.
It is just fine to be contemptuous of the demands of such weak movements.
But the danger here is several orders of magnitude greater.
We are talking of majorities in broad regions, and large numbers everywhere. A US guerrilla war would be a catastrophe.
It is prudent to consider making concessions. Consider addressing the grievances raised.

Amanda said...

Paco Wove,
It's not a misspelling. I've seen numerous documents online that are using the word Maiheur interchangeably with Malheur. Perhaps a French dialect? Who knows, but it's not a misspelling.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44046006_Mid-Montane_Wetland_Plant_Associations_of_the_Maiheur_Umatilla_and_Wallowa-Whitman_National_Forests

Amanda said...

Paco Wove, here's the answer to the spelling issue.

ungenteel

Malgre, pr. in spite of; not-Jiith Malhabilete, sf. want of partsMaiheur, sm. misfortune, ill-luck Malproprete, sf. dirtiness; sloven Malsain, e. a. sickly; unwholesome Malsonnant, e. a. ill-sounding Mandarin, sm. a mandarine Mandataire, a proxy Mander, oa. tovriteitord; to issue Mander quelqu'un, to send fur Mdier

Sammy Finkelman said...

gbarto said...1/3/16, 11:06 AM

It's nice to have some national park land, and I can see Teddy Roosevelt's reasons for wanting to preserve the environment. But there is something wrong when we cease to celebrate people having a place of their own while simultaneously demanding action be taken to keep citizens away from federal lands. That land does not belong to the government. It belongs to we the people. Do we the people really need to hold so much land in common and take it out of productive use?

If the environmentalist wackos had their druthers, 75% of the land on earth would be "forever wild."

And what's worse is apparently, it isn't even managed in way so as to keep the most trees, because you can get big wildfires. It sounds like what the Hammomds did should have been retroactively authorized. If it had been somebody else's privare property they would not have been prosecuted this way.

The protesters are fools, of course.


Amanda said...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.

Michael said...

Amanda

You are cutting and pasting at a furious pace here on the Althouse blog. Good to know that trying to overthrow the government by force is against the law. Thanks for that head's up. Cites were helpful too.

Birkel said...

The Natural Law of Man notwithstanding, we must submit.

Dr Weevil said...

Did Amanda even look at her 8:04pm link? It's a textbook example of the perils of inept OCR (optical character recognition), stuffed with what anyone who has had even a year of French in school will recognize as obvious gibberish. For instance, "Vfal-enteudu" near the bottom of the left column is obviously a misscanned "Mal-entendu" (French for "misunderstood", appropriately enough), with M misread as Vf and u misread as n (exactly the same shape upside down).

And the "Maiheur" that Amanda proudly adduces is obviously a misscanned "Malheur". She doesn't seem to have noticed that the words in Nugent's French Dictionary are (no surprise) in alphabetical order, which we can see even from the bit she quotes here. A "Maiheur" with an I would have been somewhere else on the page, if it were a French word: instead it's right in between "Malhabilite" and "Malpropete" (both of which have lost their acute - "aigu" - accents in the OCR process), right where "Malheur" should be, and right where it was in the book that someone wasted time scanning so badly and putting up on the web.

By rights, Amanda should slink away now and never show her face here again, but I suspect she won't even acknowledge her error.

Dr Weevil said...

Oh look! The book mentioned in Amanda's 7:56 link, on which she claims that "Maiheur" is "not a misspelling" is not actually available at the link. However, it is available on Amazon, where the page link, the Amazon page title, and the picture of the front cover (use the magnifying glass) all clearly say "Malheur", with an L. If Amanda continues to doubt, she can buy a copy for only $18.75 (Amazon link).

EMD said...

Amanda is quite the Tory.

Amanda said...

Weevil,
I've spent wayyyy too much time on the spelling of Maiheur/ Malhuer both words mean basically the same thing in French. I give a rat's ass for your and Paco Wove's fixation with the spelling of the word. There are way more important things to be concerned about regarding this incident. It's nothing more than an attempt at distraction from the issue.

Fritz said...

When I lived in Oregon it was Malheur. A favorite birding location. I like the John Day country better.

I would say, that out in that region of Oregon, unlike Portlandia, the majority of households will be stocked with a variety of firearms. Scoped elk, deer, and antelope rifles (you need drivers, irons and putters) known as "sniper rifles" to the urban hoplophopes, a AR-15 or similar semiauto for coyotes and other varmints, and a hand gun or two for shooting cans.

There may not be a rifle behind every blade of grass, but I'd steer 500 yds clear of the tumbleweeds.

Annie said...

Timeline and back story to what is happening in Oregon. The BLM is trying to kick the Hammonds off their land like they succeeded in doing to other ranchers, since the '70s. And they've gone about it in a dirty underhanded fashion. The same crap they tried to pull with the Bundy ranch.
Some grammatical errors but the timeline is accurate.

Looks like a backfire they started after a lightening storm started multiple fires in '06, is what the feds went after them for even though that backfire stopped the spread of the other fires and saved the vegetation. Federal agents filed a report on them the next day.

The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the accusation, evidence and charges, and determined that 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 “Terrorist” under the Federal Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996....

(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 “Terrorist” under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act. Judge Hogan sentenced Dwight (Father) to 3 months in prison and Steven (son) to 12 months in federal prison. They were also stipulated to pay $400,000 to the BLM. Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist sentence, commenting that 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 exemplifying 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 “resentenced” 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.



http://tinyurl.com/j3uyslv

Annie said...

http://www.tsln.com/news/18551282-113/story.html

Oregon Farm Bureau President Barry Bushue’s response:

“BLM accused the Hammonds of endangering lives, but a jury found they did not. Saying they ‘intentionally’ set fire to public land or threatened lives is not what the jury concluded. Federal attorney Billy Williams is wrong in his overblown statements in court yesterday. But he has helped frame the debate as we start to look at BLM’s own actions. If Williams’ rhetoric is the standard, BLM will have a lot of explaining to do, far beyond what they’ve done in this case,” said OFB President Barry Bushue.

–Oregon Farm Bureau


It seems the BLM and it's federal attorney shopped judges. Note that after finding them guilty, the judge retired.

Rusty said...


Blogger Amanda said...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Except they're not, Amanda. They're peacefully occupying an unoccupied seasonal building on federal land. They are peacefully protesting what they consider a miscarriage of justice. Any right thinking classic liberal will immediately see they occupy the moral high ground. This is no different than the occupy movement exceot that there will be less rape and death.
Just admit you're a fascist Amanda and debate from that perspective.

Paco Wové said...

Criminy.

Amanda, there is no "Maiheur National Forest", so it's pretty clear that is a bad transcription of "Malheur". In fact, both of your sources are pretty clearly optical character reading mis-transcriptions. The OCR sees "Malheur", spits out "Maiheur". Not an infrequent problem, the e-book I am reading right now is full of similar typos.

I realize this is a super-petty point, but really, your inability to admit the slightest bit of error is kind of creepy.

Paco Wové said...

Compare and contrast:

Occupation of Alcatraz Island

Dr Weevil said...

No, Amanda, you haven't spent enough time on the spelling of Malheur and 'maiheur'. It is simply and obviously false to say that "both words mean basically the same thing in French". One of them means "misfortune" and the other is entirely meaningless in French - it is a typographical error, an obvious mistake, a bungle, a blunder, an error, a non-word. The fact that you do not admit that simple fact clearly demonstrates that you are either too ignorant or too dishonest (or both) to participate in grown-up conversation on any subject. Please return to the kiddie table.

The most authoritative French dictionary, the Dictionnaire de l’Académie francaise, is conveniently on-line here, where anyone can read it - not ineptly scanned with an OCR machine, but input and proofread by native French-speakers. To save you time, I link the result page from searching for 'maiheur'. The important part is in large grey letters: "Votre recherche n'a donné aucun résultat", which is French for "Your search gave no result".

The one true thing you wrote above is "There are way more important things to be concerned about regarding this incident". Unfortunately, what you have written about them is just as ignorant, useless, misleading, and time-wasting as what you wrote about the spelling of Malheur. Please go away and stop wasting our time.

Dr Weevil said...

Rusty wrote: "They're peacefully occupying an unoccupied seasonal building on federal land." I would add: Unlike recent protesters at many colleges and universities, who (a) have seized offices that were occupied and in use, and prevented employees from working in them, and (b) gotten quite a few academics and administrators fired from their jobs.

Jason said...

You can't just walk in here! This is public land!

Jason said...

Remember how liberals and Democrats went apocalyptic when Native American activists occupied the Bureau of Indian Affairs and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage inside it in 1972 and promised not to be violent unless law enforcement tried to evict them?

Remember how democrats called for federal troops ... That is, OTHER people... To go in and "exterminate the cockroaches?"

Me, neither.

How about Occupy Portland, for that matter?

It's almost as if the left has no historical perspective nor any logical or moral consistency whatsoever.

Why, if I didn't know any better, I could almost believe that libtards don't really believe in the things that they lecture the rest of us about.

Fritz said...

Dr Weevil said...
Rusty wrote: "They're peacefully occupying an unoccupied seasonal building on federal land." I would add: Unlike recent protesters at many colleges and universities, who (a) have seized offices that were occupied and in use, and prevented employees from working in them, and (b) gotten quite a few academics and administrators fired from their jobs.


You mean like the armed occupation of ROTC headquarters at Columbia by Eric Holder and associates?

Good times!

Fritz said...

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would also like to compare and contrast the sentences of the Hammond family (five year minimums) with John Beale, the high level EPA official who conned the EPA into believing that he was a CIA covert agent to cover the fact that he was shirking his job, and who "retired" and managed to stay on the payroll for 18 more months before being caught. Sentenced to 32 months in 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526051/John-C-Beale-climate-change-expert-defrauded-EPA-900K-claiming-CIA-agent.html

Now why would rural Americans think that the government is not exactly in their corner?

james conrad said...

The courts created this mess and if it's not corrected, expect to see more armed citizens in the streets defending themselves against govt tyranny.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

Fritz,
You want a real comparison? Try sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. He used underage girls and ferried Bill Clinton to a private island.

13 months of jail time in which jail consisted of 8 hours a night in a cell and 16 hours under "house arrest" at his private million dollar home...

13 year old little girls, and worse!!