Oregon Standoff

Armed Protesters in Oregon Occupy Remote Federal Outpost at Wildlife Refuge After Marching Against Sentence of Father and Son Ranchers

Justice Department appealed the sentence to get it extended to the mandatory minimum, which the district chief judge thought was "grossly disproportionate."

|

USFWS

Yesterday afternoon, as many as 300 demonstrators gathered in Burns, Oregon, to protest a federal appeals court's decision to extend the length of a sentence handed down by a district chief judge in the arson case of ranchers father and son Dwight and Steven Hammond.

The two started a series of range fires on their private property which eventually spread onto federal land. The federal government prosecuted them in 2012 on an array of charges, from conspiracy to attempting to damage property through fire. They were found guilty on only two arson counts, which covered activities (setting fires) the Hammonds admitted to. As part of their plea deal, they agreed not to appeal their sentences. 73-year-old Dwight Hammond was sentenced to three months in prison and his 46-year-old son Steven to 11 months, below the mandatory minimum of five years, which the judge, Michael Hogan, called "grossly disproportionate" and said would "shock his conscience."

As per the deal, the Hammonds didn't appeal the sentence. But the Department of Justice did, getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Hogan's decision and order the Hammonds to return to jail. They are supposed to do so on Monday.

Many media outlets are not reporting these particular facts. Oregon Live's article, part of an ongoing series, listed as "highly cited" by Google News, mentions only that the protesters opposed the Hammonds' prosecution and that the father-son duo would be reporting to jail Monday.

Even more attention has gone to some of the protesters' actions after the demonstration in Burns. Some of the armed protesters, led by rancher and militiaman-activist Ammon Bundy, then headed for a remote federal outpost 30 miles away, which was located in and serves as the headquarters for the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, with the intention to occupy the building until federal authorities stop persecuting local ranchers like the Hammonds with heavy-handed prosecutions and land management.

Left-wing Twitter, of course, didn't label this protest, say, #OccupyMalheur, but #OregonUnderAttack, which implies, incorrectly, that the protesters at Malheur were being violent against the residents of Oregon. There have been no reports of any casualties, clashes, hostages, or deaths. There appears to have been nobody at the outpost the protesters occupied. Bundy told the media he and the protesters plan on occupying the outpost "for years," and called on like-minded activists, or "patriots," to join them, but it's unclear that the protesters have the resources to accomplish a sustained occupation. The local sheriff said multiple agencies are "currently working on a solution."

You can expect endless "think pieces" and "hot takes" around the idea that the government should crack down on the armed protesters with extreme prejudice—either in the service of equality of police violence or out of a disdain for activists who exercise their Second Amendment rights, as well as calls to identify the protesters as "terrorists" for having the audacity to use guns in their demonstration. (Semi-related: as a student at Columbia, Eric Holder participated in an "armed" takeover of an ROTC office.)

Such arguments, as always, only serve to provide legitimacy for future acts of government violence. Self-proclaimed people of conscience interested in reducing and even eliminating excessive state violence should not make exceptions just because government violence might satiate their sectarian desires or partisan agendas, because those exceptions easily become the rule by being exploited by other sectarians and partisans.

NEXT: Most Pirated Films of 2015 Show That Stealing is Great for Hollywood

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. #ranchlifematters

    1. I think the most telling thing in this whole situation is that the same liberals that express outrage over U.S. bombings of brown people are calling for these militia protesters to be shot. Liberals are not more tolerant than conservatives. They have just created a new out group onto which to project their hate.

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  2. #OregonUnderAttack, which implies, incorrectly, that the protesters at Malheur were being violent against the residents of Ohio.

    #AutocorrectHatesOregon

    1. I could understand Oregonians trying to violently attack Ohio after the beat down we gave them in the National Championship game less than a year ago.

      ::sigh::

      What could have been…wasted by one bad game plan against MSU.

      1. You guys are going to suck next year.

        O-H
        NO

        1. Probably not. MSU graduates something like 25 players, we have a top 3 recruiting class and we have an incoming OC that’s not a complete idiot.

          Pretty sure we’ll just reload.

          1. I’m predicting 10-2 during that reloading. Which does suck by our standards. So you may be right.

            But we’ll still beat scUM.

            1. I’m just going to savor the win over the Irish for now.

              1. Crimson Death Star is coming for you all.

            2. At Oklahoma, Penn St, Wisconsin, Mich St, home vs Nebraska, Mich.

              Much tougher than 2015.

            3. And what fucking business did Iowa have being at the Rose Bowl? They didn’t play any of a the formidable teams in the Big Ten, with the exception of MSU, and then owing to this fact they qualified for a Rose Bowl raping.

            4. If Harbaugh continues recruiting like he is, Michigan will make a title appearance within 5 years.

              1. Will he still be there, or will he have pissed everyone else off?

            5. But we’ll still beat scUM.

              Which is the most important thing.
              Beating that team up North is all it takes to be a good year.
              Recent success has spoiled us.
              The drought between Woody and Tressel should not be forgotten.

              1. The Sweater was a crook. sCUM will fade.

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    4. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

      Clik This Link inYour Browser….

      ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

    5. What I heard on the radio news headlines was “Armed protesters occupy a federal building in Oregon”, conjuring mental images of a high rise office building with a day care on the first floor.

    1. Best studio in strategy gaming. Crusader Kings II for the win!

  3. As per the deal, the Hammonds didn’t appeal the sentence. But the Department of Justice (DOJ) did, getting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Hogan’s decision and order the Hammonds to return to jail. They are supposed to do so on Monday.

    Piece of shit DOJ and piece of shit Ninth Circuit.

    1. “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”

      1. Just watched that with the little on last night.

        All I’ve heard today is “Can we watch the next Star Horse?”

      2. Ayatollah Khamenei, is that you?

        -Barry

    2. I get this.

      A couple of the King’s subjects accidentially burn up some of the King’s grass and weeds which will grow back even more healthy. ( that’s why ranchers do burns) and get sent to jail whre a King’s man thinks they got off too lightly and sent them back to jail for the same “crime”

      Elsewhere some of the King’s men knowingly poison a river and a lot of it’s drainage basin that did extensive damage that will endure for a long time and …crickets..

      I guess the two ranchers should condsider themselves lucky that they weren’t hung for poaching the King’s wildlife as I am sure the fire killed some bugs and ants and stuff

      1. Meanwhile, back on the ranch in Colorado… Around the same time, Colorado had a burn get out of control. Gross and unabashed negligence, iirc. Land management employees wandered off bored, leaving a still-smoldering burn.

        People died in the ensuing wildfire.

        And nothing else happened.

        I’ll find a link when I get off mobile.

        1. May, 2000. Cerro Grande Fire causes the evacuation of the city of Los Alamos, NM, and burns 400 homes. A “controlled burn” that got out of control, set by the Forest Service. Result? One old codger was allowed to retire.

          … Hobbit

          1. So, you oppose people lighting fires they may not be able to control, but only REALLY oppose it when the government set the fire?
            #consistency

            1. Maybe H’o’D opposed government assholes committing crimes and never seeing any consequences for their actions.

              1. If you ever want to feel better about yourself, just compare yourself to timb’s estrogen-packed mushbody:
                https://twitter.com/timb116

                1. I can’t even…

                  or odd either.

                  If this timb thing is a real person I fear for our republic.

            2. So, you oppose people lighting fires they may not be able to control but only REALLY oppose it when the government set the fire?

              The criteria should be the same: unintentional property damage to third party property should be a matter for civil courts only (no criminal charges) and paid for by the property owner or government; injury or death should result in criminal charges against the individual responsible for negligence or manslaughter.

              People are upset because such basic and obvious principles are violated: civil matters are charged as criminal matters when the federal government feels its style cramped, while employees of the federal government can apparently get away with manslaughter.

            3. The area where the fire took place is on range land and literally in the middle of nowhere. The family lives on 6,000 acres adjacent to BLM land. They set the fire to protect their home and outbuildings because brush fires caused by lightning strike is common in the area if the underbrush is not properly managed. The Indians knew this and also practiced the same technique. I know the area very well because I lived there for 30 years of my life. The family ended up burning a mere 125 acres of federal land by mistake. For this they were labeled “terrorists”. Check your fucking urban privilege, slaver.

          2. So, you oppose people lighting fires they may not be able to control, but only REALLY oppose it when the government set the fire?
            #consistency

            1. Since opposition is taking place in both cases, the only point you have is the one on your head, shitlib.

            2. Consistency is exactly the point, which I can’t fathom how you don’t grasp it. These men are charged with anti-terrorist laws for a mistake (which actually may have been a success in hindering the greater wildfire issue that was in action) in which a few acres of federal land burned, while Gov’t agents poison waters and kill people and no one is punished.
              #consistency is right. It’s exactly part of the the JustUs two-tiered system of injustice rampant in America today.

            3. Lack of consistency is the problem with what’s happening and it’s why people are upset. See above.

        2. Found the link. The surprising thing is that I didn’t recall sufficient gory details.

          “The escaped burns suggest a pattern of gross negligence that culminated in last spring’s deadly fire, say lawyers for victims of the Lower North Fork blaze, who are suing the Denver Water Board, the Colorado State Forest Service, the Colorado Department of Public Safety and seven other agencies and individuals.”

          Losing a burn is apparently not merely something agencies have done before, in the case of Colorado it is their pattern and practice.

          If you’re not sick enough yet, let’s gild the lily:

          There’s no way the Hammonds are an isolated incident.

      2. Right, burning communal land to hide your poaching and getting lucky that only 140 acres burned is the equivalent of burning the “king’s land,” because there is no such thing as federal law or property or poaching

        1. But when people die as a result of negligent burns by the government, it’s all good, right?

        2. If it’s communal land how is it poaching?

          My four-year-old sister-in-law once said about some food on the table “you can’t have that that’s for everybody.”

          Communism: maybe a smart as a four-year-old.

  4. Much of HuffPo are calling for them to be assassinated. Because, you know, the tolerant people are on the left.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..58f65be382

    1. Well, they value national wildlife refuges more than people.

      1. but they value people over ROTC offices (federal government property), apparently.

        Or more likely, it’s principals over principles.

        1. They want whatever advances leftwing causes, no matter how illogical.

          1. They don’t even know what “leftist causes” are. They just want to punish anybody that is loosely aligned with ranching, farming, oil, western culture or media-labeled “conservativism”. Because that’s easier than supporting what you believe in or in most cases having a belief system to begin with.

            HuffTards are as malignant as cancer.

              1. Did you find a torch yet? I’m getting zero torch taste from mine so far.

                I’m thinking of stepping up to the TS8000 and using oxygen. Going from 4000? to 6200? might make it even better.

                1. Not yet. My last Sous Vide was turkey thighs. 149F for 7 hours. You don’t want to hit that with a torch at all. Good carved right out of the bath.

                  Can you get oxygen shipped cheaply, or is there a hazmat fee?

                  1. Just go to Home Depot and buy the little tanks, right?

                    I can get it at our shop at work. But the ones at Home Depot and Lowe’s ought to do fine, I would think.

            1. Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

              1. –Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

                Oliver Wendell Holmes agrees

                http://paxonbothhouses.blogspo…..te-of.html

                1. So………..are you equating progressives with ‘three generations of imbeciles’? Or equating me with the Nazis? I’m a bit unclear.

                  As they are communists, I see the progs as an existential threat to our constitutional republic. A perception that is being born out in fact. Reducing their numbers will stop them. Putting them to sleep is a great way to do that. Though deportation to Anarctica would accomplish the same thing.

              2. Is this a good time to discuss my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

                Like pie it’s always a good time to discuss this!

                1. I hear woodchippers are a great way to go. If we get this going, it will be a good time to also buy stock in manufacturers of woodchippers.

    2. Proggies are truly loving and caring !

    3. I’m not clicking on that.

    4. Today I learned from Huff Po that ranchers are spoiled and have had everything handed to them.

      Lazy, lazy ranchers. Get a real job!

      1. They’re right. Not everybody is willing to put in the work to be a rooftop beekeeper or a unicycle stuntman. Some people take the easy path and herd cattle.

        1. And being a trendy hipster is a lot of work. Not like those lazy ranchers and their pre-dawn to sundown hard labor schedules.

      2. Projection.

        1. Lol no kidding

      3. Today I learned from Huff Po that ranchers are spoiled and have had everything handed to them.

        I have no doubt it’s hard work. At the same time, ranchers are also a strong lobbying group receiving tons of government handouts. Apart from numerous subsidies, the public land grazing arrangements stink to high heaven. Bundy is right to the degree that the federal government shouldn’t own this land; but if he wants to graze there, he should have to buy it instead of making sweetheart deals with the federal or state government, giving him effective control over the land without ever buying it.

    5. The gawker entry is even better

      A group of militiamen who have taken over a national wildlife refuge in Oregon have been joined by the notable Bundy family, a group of anti-government ranchers headed by a racist patriarch.

      1. I hope the government just storms in and slaughters them. Enough with this fucking shit. If you want to be oppressed, the official position of the government should be to fulfill your wish.

        1. The irony.

          1. Completely lost on them.

            1. Until the president Trump “coronation”..

        2. Should I take this to mean that this person advocates slaughtering snowflakes on college campuses? I mean, if they want to be oppressed, the government should oblige them, right?

          1. Shut up, you racist, mysoginist, homophobic, one-percenter cis-hetero shitlord.

        3. Progressive commentators call for whole sale slaughter of people they find disagreeable over events that have no effect on their daily lives whatsoever. This is sure to unify the country.

        4. I wonder if that poster would say the same thing if this was May 2, 1967 and the Black Panthers carrying guns had just occupied the California Legislature.

      2. Reminder to self = never read Gawker. Its a sewer of ignorant smug.

    6. Fuck, even the reason post on FB is a comment shitshow. I waded in and now wished I hadn’t.

      1. I can’t figure why the staffers think we’re SO BAD. I mean, they have a Facebook. They’ve seen the alternatives.

    7. When they have enough power, this is what will happen to freedom of speech. Need to get rid of the progs now, while there is still time.

  5. “The two started a series of range fires on their private property which eventually spread onto federal land. ”

    That doesn’t sound like arson to me.

    1. It would not be arson if a couple of government employees started some fires on government property to burn off grass and brush and it spread to private property, it would just be a oops.

      1. Or if they poisoned an entire watershed, right?

        1. This was the EPA’s official apology.

          1. I would have expected them to use the generic government press briefing to address it.

            1. Or have Josh Earnest do it. He brings in his own brand of comedy.

      2. Or, even more likely, the private property owners would be fined for not adequately clearing their brush.

        1. You know who else didn’t clear their underbrush?

          1. Miley Cyrus?

          2. I’m probably due for a trim.

    2. Pretty sure they were leasing the federal land for grazing. Which more or less should make this a civil matter between landlord and tenant.

      In rural Oregon, they should have gone to a jury trial. Apparently that’s safer than expecting the federal government to honor a plea agreement.

      1. Nothing ever goes to a jury in federal court. You can’t risk it.

        The feds use massively draconian sentences to coerce guilty pleas.

        1. And apparently they don’t even honor their side of the plea agreement.

          This is the ultimate FYTW.

          1. This is the outrage. The rules don’t apply to them, no sirree.

    3. That doesn’t sound like arson to me.

      I agree. They would be negligent and liable for damages as a minimum. But jail time, for an accident? Unless there is something we haven’t been made aware of(under a burn notice?), I’m not seeing it. Even the original sentence seems over the top.

      Oh, and FUCK MANDATORY MINIMUMS!

      1. I read there was a local burn ban in place, which should have been a state law or city ordinance thing.

        I also read that in the second instance, they set the fires at night knowing that rookie federal firefighters were nearby and it supposedly put them in such danger that they had to ::gasp:: relocate their camp.

        Those firefighters, by the way, were setting controlled fires on federal land while the local burn ban was in place. Because they’re the Kings men and are more qualified to do a controlled burn even though they’re undertrained enough that the controlled fires someone else set were a danger to them.

        Seriously, why didn’t they use this simple logic in their defense? Either the government was negligent in sending out undertrained firemen or they were in no real danger. Which is it?

        1. Good chance that the judge would not allow that to be argued.

      2. Having watched many seasons of Burn Notice, I can confirm that the CIA did not start this fire.

    4. That land belongs to gaia!

    5. Here’s what the prosecutor says:

      Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out ‘Strike Anywhere’ matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to ‘light up the whole country on fire.’ One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.

      http://tinyurl.com/j7652bj

      1. Here is a counterpoint:

        (o) Federal attorneys, Frank Papagni, hunted down a witness that was not mentally capable to be a credible witness. Dusty Hammond (grandson and nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire. He was 13 at the time and 24 when he testified (11 years later). At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many years. He had estranged his family including his mother. Judge Hogan noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or credible. He allowed the prosecution to continually use Dusty’s testimony anyway. When speaking to the Hammonds about this testimony, they understood that Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing but love for their troubled grandson.

        http://tinyurl.com/zeczm6b

        1. Federal prosecutors really are monsters anymore.

  6. Nice article, Ed.

    You can expect endless “think pieces” and “hot takes” around the idea that the government should crack down on the armed protesters with extreme prejudice?either in the service of equality of police violence or out of a disdain for activists who exercise their Second Amendment rights, as well as calls to identify the protesters as “terrorists” for having the audacity to use guns in their demonstration

    Hot takes are all that seemingly matters to a large part of the internets. Goodbye nuanced thought.

    1. Mmmm… Hot takes with butter and syrup…

        1. Wafflebot says they serve pancakes in Hell.

  7. Speaking of ranchers, did you guys see the stories about thousands of cows freezing to death in the last couple of weeks as a result of the winter storms? I was looking forward to the price of beef dropping due to the wonderful rains last year pushing feed costs down. I guess that dream is gonna be,put off for another year.

    1. Cows freeze to death because of global warming caused by cow farts–that’s mother Gaia striking back in self-defense. And all your evil capitalist heart cares about is the price of beef, you specist bastard?!

      1. You realize you could post that exact same comment at HuffPo and get applauded for your insightfulness. Seriously.

        Shit, you’d probably get offered a fucking job.

        1. Huffpost writer. Yet another occupation that’s tougher than rancher.

          1. Fighting the good fight against shitlord teabaggers and their insistence upon facts is hungry work.

    2. Global warming works in mysterious ways.

    3. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen BBQ with Franklin on PBS, but you can web stream it if you’re interested. The guy makes the best BBQ brisket in the world.

      Anyway, on one of the episodes, he goes to a meat processing plant to show where the brisket comes from and how it’s cut. If I ever have an opportunity, I want to learn all of that stuff. It would be very useful to be able to break down an entire side of beef…

      1. I agreed to process a steer and a hog in a few months with a coworker in return for 50 lbs of beef and half the pork.

        I’ve done swine before. And lambs and a goat. It’s not that tough. You just need space and time.

        Oh, and buy this: very good book.

        1. Yeah, I’d have to go somewhere to do it. As a precautionary tale, there was an episode of Workaholics where they try to process a side of beef in their house.

          I’ll look into that book. (there’s a 1 star rating that simply says “gross”)

        2. I’ve done some feral hogs before.

          One item i’d add to your list is a very good knife.

      2. Aaron Franklin is better than Jesus at making meat delicious. He’s also a really nice guy.

        1. Yep, and without a secret rub. Just salt and pepper.

          If I lived nearby, I’d be there at least once a week.

          1. I’m in Austin 2-3 times a year, I try to plan an extra day where I can grab a sixer and something to sit on in order to show up 2 hours before they open. It’s like tailgating brisket.

            He’s super picky about what he buys and knows the whole process through and through, nothing fancy just knowledge and care. I’d like to up my game like that too, as you suggested.

            1. If you take a sixer, be sure to leave bail instructions for someone. Open container in Austin is apparently too weird for the cops to let go unpunished.

              1. I’ve sat in their parking lot drinking beer in a lawn chair approaching double digits instances with no issue. Maybe they aren’t on the lookout at 9am?

                I wouldn’t put it past them to ride up on me and empty a clip for violating a stupid law, I just ask they let me get my Franklin BBQ first.

                1. I’ve seen many a person get cuffed up for walking down the street with an open container there. Pretty sure they’re just doing it on Sixth Street now to keep Austin < sweird touristy, now that I think about it.

                  1. Dirty sixth is a fucking gong show, I usually find a place with decent music (I like the white horse and wherever Dale is playing), the Horseshoe, or just go wander around Rainey Street. Thanks for the heads up Sloop.

          2. The best brisket in the nation is in Pearland, Tx. at Killens.

            He also does a beef rib that will take your breath away.

            I’m 59 and have been eating and cooking BBQ all my life. My exe’s aunt was once name best brisket in Texas by Texas Monthly’s yearly “Best BBQ in Texas ” feature.. I’ve eaten at all the big name joints in Texas through the years. Killens has won numerous awards from GQ, Food Network et al.

            Killen’s is simply the best ever. Don’t ever pass up an opportunity to eat there.

            1. So she won best BBQ and she cooked brisket too? That’s pretty damn talented seeing as the demands of cooking pulled pork are different than those for cooking brisket.

              1. Both are delicious, so if I’m in south suburban Houston I’ll give it a ride. Not gonna go out of my way though.

                More than anything I love Texas because it’s a nice reprieve from the STL/KC people who think that you can fuck up the meat so long as you make a good sauce. I don’t eat at any bbq/smoked place here because of that, gotta be done by me or someone I trust.

                1. When I got back to Texas a few months ago, the next morning I stepped outside to fetch something from the car. My glasses fogged up, sweat was rolling down my back by the time I reached the car, and when I opened the door a scorpion fell off the roof.

                  But by god, it was good to be back in the land of barbecue. The food is incredible.

              2. So what’s next sloopy ?

                Is deep dish piza really pizza?

                1. I’m just fucking around. BBQ truly is regionalized.

                  But deep dish isn’t pizza.

          3. Franklin’s is good, but there are other places in town (or within an hour’s drive) that are just as good, without the wait and with fewer hipsters around. Franklin learned as an apprentice to John Mueller, who has a place in east Austin. John’s family has a place in Taylor that is more worthy of a visit than Franklin’s (thr third generation now runs it- John’s brother). John’s sister LeeAnne has LA Barbeque in east Austin, with the pit run by another guy that John trained as an assistant (he must be a good teacher, but he’s notoriously hard to get along with- I’ll pass on saying why to avoid libeling him- google if you must know).

            For similar brisket- salt & pepper rub slow smoked over post oak- there are three places in Lockhart (35mi SE of town), which also have outlets in Austin. For sliggtly different – smoked over Mesquite instead of oak- Cooper’s (originally from Llano) just had their s soft open for a location on Congress Ave downtown.

            Franklin’s is nice, but there is too many competitors that are as good or better to spend 3-4 hours in line.

            1. Done the tour of Lockhart, been to La bbq, all great. Maybe I’ll have to re-taste test them all, damn you cruel world…

              1. There are other upstarts in Austin that are worth a visit if already in town, but Taylor and Lockhart are the only destinations worth a pilgrimage, IMO.

            2. https://www.instagram.com/p/_SWXrEtKOW/

              From the Louie Istagram feed.

              This is exactly what I was looking for.

    4. Actually, here in TX where 30.000 head froze, the price is dropping now because they had to process all that beef.

  8. You can expect endless “think pieces” and “hot takes” around the idea that the government should crack down on the armed protesters with extreme prejudice?either in the service of equality of police violence or out of a disdain for activists who exercise their Second Amendment rights

    In the present climate, I would expect Obama not to let this crisis go to waste and to use this as an excuse to push the strongest gun control measures he can get away with imposing by executive order.

    1. I think Barry should walk in there with a six pack and settle this over a beer.

      1. +1

        LO freakin’ L

      2. The beer summit was the high point of his administration.

        1. I don’t think it would go as well as the last one did with these guys.

          But I think he should try.

    1. Super bored.

    2. The early game is the Redskins.

      I’m a life long fan, and I don’t even care about this game.

      I’d rather watch rednecks shooting deer or something–and those shows are basically infomercials.

      1. I am rooting for the Redskins just because I feel like Racist Oppressors deserve a break

        1. The results of this game don’t matter to anyone.

          The Redskins get a home game in the wildcard round either way.

          The Cowboys aren’t getting into the playoffs.

          The Redskins may pull all their starters after the first quarter–maybe even after the first couple of possessions.

          I like beating the Cowboys into embarrassment as much as the next Redskins fan, but it’s a lot less fun when the results matter.

          1. It might matter to the Cowboys draft position.

            I have empathy for Redskin fans who love to beat the Cowboys into embarrassment.

            It must be a very exhilirating experience sine it happens so very seldom.

            “Washington is just 3-18 SU in its last 21 games on the road and 4-15 SU in its last 19 games when playing on the road against the Cowboys.”

            1. A good reason for Washington to pull their starters…hurt the Cowboys draft position.

          2. I hate to see the Skins secondary get beat up like this in their last game before the playoffs.

            I’m much happier seeing the Skins win if it can’t be the Cowboys.

            It’s the Iggles and then the Giants that i don’t have warm feeling for.

            Skins vs. Cowboys hasn’t been much of a rivalry since the days of Aikman and since Snyder bought the Skins.

      2. I’m rooting for the Redskins because I’m a lifelong Cowboys fan and we need the highest draft choice we can get.

        1. Hell yeah. America’s Team all the way.

          1. huh, I’m with the Steeler Nation

    3. Why? Do you want to go on a road trip to Oregon?

    4. Are you guys bored?

      “Do you want to build a cardboard submarine?”

      1. “Do you want to build a cardboard submarine?”

        Woah….are you a wizard?

    5. Ok, I’ll take that as a no. So allow me to bore you. A couple of days ago Acosmist inquired as to why I labeled the clause “an argument ensued” as passive. Because English doesn’t have a middle voice, and has a fair amount of ambitransitive verbs, it is quite common to have clauses that are active syntactically but passive semantically. This has ramifications for natural language processing work done in English, but I’ll get to that later. First, let me give you some examples of what I’m talking about. Consider these three sentences:
      1. The submarine sank the boat with a torpedo.
      2. The boat was sunk by the submarine with a torpedo.
      3. The boat sank due to the torpedo.

      In the first sentence, the clause construction is straightforward, a transitive verb in the active voice. The subject “submarine” is the agent of the action and the object “boat” is the patient of the action. Likewise, in the second sentence, we have a typical passive construction in our verb phrase; the subject is the patient and the agent is marked with “by”. However, the third sentence is different. The clause, “The boat sank” is clearly active in its construction, yet it is also clear that even though the boat is subject of the verb, it is not the agent as the active voice requires. [cont.]

      1. Well now I’m bored.

      2. Ok, I’m bored.

      3. [cont.]

        I’ll pay you not to.

          1. OK, passive/reflexive construction looks better on government forms than “the officer shot the unarmed pickaninny in the back, then handcuffed the dead body.” But… this is news?

      4. Maybe you could post a link to your Masters thesis? That’ll stop all this boredom.

        1. No, my Masters thesis included Japanese schoolgirls.

          1. Massaka, omae wa hentai na yatsu.

      5. I tried to read this but halfway through I nearly dozed off and relaxed so much I pissed myself.

        How’s that for active voice?

        1. Pants were pissed.

        2. I pissed myself. … How’s that for active voice?

          Again, in that sentence, the agent and patient are the same…so we’re left in mediopassive limbo land.

          1. Jesus. Suthenboy can’t even piss himself correctly.

          2. *facepalm*

            It must be face palm day.

            Hell, it’s nearly 3 here. Drinks will be consumed.

              1. A palm came into contact the face.

      6. Also, note that in the first two clauses the verb is transitive; whereas, in the 3rd clause it is intransitive. Like a lot of ambitransitive verbs in English, there is a slight semantic difference between the two. As an intransitive verb “sink” describes a change of state; and this is clear from the semantics in the 3rd sentence. However, the construction is also not what some call the “stative passive” (i.e., the boat is sunk). The verb exists in what is called the mediopassive, which is not specifically marked in English like some other languages (Indeed, in some languages stative verbs are always expressed int he mediopassive). Some other examples of the mediopassive in English, which might be helpful are “Flank steaks cook easily” or “Redheads age quickly”. In each of those sentences, we have an active voice syntax with passive voice semantics: the steaks are the things being cooked and redheads are the ones being ravaged by time.

        1. ::slips into coma::

        2. Now let us turn to natural language processing. As native speakers of English, you never had to explicitly learn the distinction between the first two clauses and the third. All of you use intuitively use verbs in syntactically active constructions that are semantically passive everyday. But like donkey sentences, they make very little sense to a computer trying to parse it out (forgive the anthropomorphizing!) From what I understand, one answer is deep linguistic processing, which uses highly detailed syntactical and semantic representations to encode information.

          1. Another approach uses machine learning and huge corpora of authentic natural text to let the program figure out that everyday humans use “The boat was sunk with a torpedo.” “The boat sank due to the torpedo.” are pretty much semantically equivalent.

            1. Let’s pretend this sub thread is a boat. And our boredom is a torpedo.

            2. Is this gonna be on the test?

        3. Wait wait, go back to the “redheads being ravaged” bit.

            1. Proceed.

              1. Sure. In the example, “The boat sank”, we also have what is know as causative alternation.

      7. One would think hybrid vigor would result in less boring posts?

      8. Jesus. Can we please go,back to the story from earlier today about the 46 year old dude with seven kids that decided to tranny into a 6 year old girl? It’s way better than these torpedoes and boats and shit.

        1. He’s weird, but he can live however he wants to. He does have the option of having himself declared mentally incompetent and either find someone to accept responsibility for him or become a ward of the state, just like anybody else with serious mental issues. So what’s there to talk about?

      9. I’m not that fucking bored.

        Try something else HM.

        Can you sing a little song or maybe dance a jig ?

          1. I didn’t make the connection at first but your wife has nice tits.

      10. I would only ever use #1

  9. Hiw many sentances for murder or rape have US Attorneys appealed.

    1. I didn’t realize prosecutors could appeal a sentence like that.

      I’m not a lawyer but this seems to violate double jeopardy in terms of multiple punishments after a single conviction to me.

      If they served their sentence for the crime for which they were convicted, then I don’t think they can give them two sentences for the same crime.

      1. As I understand it the sentence was appealed after the initial sentence was served.

        These dopes took over an unoccupied fed building instead of grabbing the US attorney who appealed the sentence or the judge who altered it? Hmmm.

        1. My understanding is that the Hammonds have stated that they did not ask for the militia people to come to their aid and don’t necessarily want their help.

          1. Yeah, looks like they thanked everybody for coming out and protesting and asked everybody to be peaceful. They said they planned on reporting to turn themselves in tomorrow morning.

            They’re being pretty respectful of the state here. Probably expecting it to be resolved in the courts with an expedited appeal.

      2. I’m not a lawyer but this seems to violate double jeopardy in terms of multiple punishments after a single conviction to me.

        My assumption was that they appealed because the mandatory minimum wasn’t applied?

        But I’m no lawyer either.

        1. Not after they served their sentence, though.

          Multiple punishment, including prosecution after conviction

          In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court announced the following test: the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not.[68] Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute legislatively intends to depart; for example, Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,[69] as can conspiracy.[70]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy #United_States

          They were effectively sentenced twice for the same crime–the second sentence appears to have been rendered after they served the first sentence.

          And I don’t know that “because the first judge made a sentencing mistake” means the Hammonds lose their right not to be subjected to double jeopardy.

          It’s entirely possible likely probable virtually certain that the point behind this protest will get lost in the coverage. Because they’re militia, it’s assumed they must be wrong in the MSM. But if you don’t want militia people peacefully protesting on public land because you violated someone’s right not to be subjected to double jeopardy, there’s a way to avoid that . . .

          Don’t violate people’s right not to be subjected to double jeopardy.

      3. I’m confused about the appeal too.

        In Minnesoda we are running a program where we involuntarily commit sexual offenders after their sentences are complete in order to keep them off the streets. It has been found unconstitutional, but the pols keep fighting because they don’t want to be the guy who lets them out.

        The reason – we are told – that these guys were getting out, is that when these guys were originally sentenced the law didn’t provide for long enough prison time. So now we are stuck with them getting out.

        If it is really possible to go back and resentence, I can’t see why we wouldn’t be doing that with these people. It would be a much better solution legally than involuntarily committing them.

        1. Principles matter.

          I support not violating anybody’s double jeopardy rights–even if it means letting child molesters out of prison.

          I’d support Second Amendment rights even IF IF IF doing so meant there would be more mass shootings.

          I support the Fourth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment even if the government listening to our phone calls without a warrant and torturing terrorists would save innocent American lives.

          Protecting our right to double jeopardy even if doing so lets molesters out of prison is ugly, but sometimes that’s what not trading in our freedom for security looks like. We give child molesters a jury trial, the right to confront their accusers, the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc., too. Protecting those rights (rather than the people) makes molesters harder to lock up in the first place, but I support respecting all of those rights on principle regardless.

          I can understand committing people to a mental institution becasue they’re a danger to themselves or others. I don’t think that’s necessarily unconstitutional.

          1. Too many William Ropers around.

          2. Many child molestors are held indefinately after their sentences have been completed.

            i don’t knoe how they do that to them though. surely all their lawyers can’t just lay down for that.

          3. Ken,

            I totally agree with you that principles matter. I was trying to make the point that if it is possible to go back and revisit a sentence, I would rather they did that than our civil commitment process. It seems like a more transparent solution and has the benefit of having an end date.

            Our current civil commitment process has put people in lock up without any chance of ever getting out. It is truly a stupid law that is pandering to the fears in our state. Both a GOP (Pawlenty) and a Dem (Dayton) have pretty much defied the courts and kept the program running.

            http://www.mprnews.org/story/2…..titutional

        2. We do this occasionally in WA. But there is significant due process involved. Including a procedure analogous to a trial with a twelve person jury. I was nearly on one of those with for civil commitment proceeding for one of Spokane’s most notorious serial rapists. This was after he served his 25 year sentence.

      4. The original judge was bound by law to impose a minimum five year sentence. That judge ruled that that minimum sentence was unconstitutionally harsh and unusual and imposed a more lenient sentence. The prosecutor appealed that ruling and won in a higher court, which means that the five year minimum sentence came back into effect. So, they aren’t getting a second sentence, they are simply serving out the legally required minimum sentence. I think this sucks on many levels, but legally, it’s not double jeopardy and it seems to be formally correct.

        1. “The prosecutor appealed that ruling and won in a higher court, which means that the five year minimum sentence came back into effect.”

          There are different kinds of double jeopardy.

          Prosecutors generally can’t appeal an acquittal. That’s one kind.

          They shouldn’t be able to give you a second sentence for the same crime after you’ve served your original sentence and been released. That’s another kind.

          From comments here, my understanding is that they did their time on the original sentence, and they were released. Maybe double jeopardy isn’t the only issue here. Maybe it’s their right to a speedy trial. Seems like if you can serve a felony sentence before getting your sentence reheard by an appeals court, there’s a big problem there.

          Regardless, if the first judge made an error in sentencing, I’m not convinced that should be to the convict’s detriment. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, but this may speak to substantive due process. How long can the government go after they release a convict who’s served his sentence and then tell him that he has to go back to prison and serve more time? A year? A Month? Two years? Ten? There must be a limit somewhere.

          1. Regardless, if the first judge made an error in sentencing, I’m not convinced that should be to the convict’s detriment.

            There was no acquittal and there was no second sentence. There was also no “error in sentencing”.

            They were found guilty of setting fire on public land, and that meant a minimum sentence of 5 years. The judge also ruled that he considered that minimum sentence unconstitutional, so he reduced it to something much shorter. The government then challenged the second ruling and it was thrown out and the original sentence went back into effect.

            I don’t think any of that constitutes a miscarriage of justice per se, and complaining about that means missing the real problems in this case. (1) Did the government tamper with witnesses or misdirect the jury? (2) Is the punishment actually just and not unusually harsh? and (3) Did the government file their challenge on time?

        2. Also, we effectively let people go (exclude evidence) if the evidence used to indict them was collected improperly or without a warrant. In those cases, it isn’t the defendant that pays the price for the government’s mistakes; likewise, if the courts get something wrong, that doesn’t necessarily mean these men don’t still have the right not to be sentenced again for the same crime–especially if they’ve already served their original sentence.

          So that’s three things I see that don’t look right about this case:

          1) Right to a speedy trial (sentencing) may have been violated
          2) Double Jeopardy
          3) Due Process.

          1. The court didn’t “get something wrong” and there was no mistake, it made a ruling that was overturned. Nor was there an “original sentence”.

            Some blogs made the argument that the government came back years after the original sentence to have them resentenced, but it looks to me like they challenged the ruling immediately. The original case was in 2012, and the Hammonds asked SCOTUS to prevent the government from such a challenge in 2013. They probably then waited a year for whether SCOTUS was going to take the case, and then the actual challenge took another year to wind its way through the system, which takes us to October 2015.

            I think making this a “Due Process” or “Speedy Trial” issue is distracting from the real issue, namely whether the original court case was fair, whether the laws under which they were sentenced were just laws, and whether the federal government should be owning this land and handing out grazing rights on it in the first place.

    2. I doubt many. Those are typically state-level offenses.

      1. Typically. Until politics get involved.

        1. +1 civil rights violation and hate crime

      2. Many are federal. My wife and I watch a lot of those forensic files shows and are often appalled at how low some of the sentances are. Never seen an appeal in any of those. Of course this isn’t about justice it’s about government wanting to steal property and being willing to do anything no matter how depraved in order to do it.

  10. More backstory to this. More infurating government bullshit.

    http://theconservativetreehous…..rsecution/

    1. Holy crap. That’s outright corruption and abuse.

    2. 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.

      Terrorist? This is a perfect example of government using every tool at its disposal to get what it wants. People be damned.

      1. I am looking at this and thinking it is more like workplace violence.

        1. Why? Is the guy wearing a turban?

      2. There are terrorists involved in this story though.

        i am ewually disgusted by the state of Oregon allowing their citizens to be mistreated like this.

        I don’t think Texas would bend over like this for the feds, at least i like to think they wouldn’t.

        I guess the Oregon rulers were too busy building a super doper state of the art website that didn’t work to fight for the rights of their citizens against some corrupt and evil Fed Gov. workers.

        i always like to remind peope when reading a story like this that the Fed Gov isn’t an entity in and of itself. These are people making these decisions. People who were hired to run the FedGov alphabet agencies are making thee decisions.

        During the IRS scandal i could see the motivations behind the actions of people who were abusing their power for their own preceived best interests. however here i can see no personal motivations behind the BLM and the Park Reserve employees.

        Were they play acting that they were also ranchers who were fighting some of the old range wars to increase their spreads

        Were these sickos living in a drea world where the hammonds were their own personal enemies ?Many of their actions seem to be so overblown in that they Hammonds didn’t necessarily just take actions scoffing at the bureaucrats power. They just followed the law like when they purchased some water rights that seemed to infuriate the bureaucrats.

        1. OneOut has a sticky keyboard, all you people tempted to correct his spelling.

          *ostentatiously avoids looking at Ted*

          1. What was he doing to make his keyboard sticky?

            1. Reading HM’s Master’s Thesis. The one with the Japanese schoolgirls.

    3. (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. This act carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”.

      1. (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.

        1. To date they have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder $200,000 must be paid before the end of this year (2015). If the Hammonds cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch to the BLM or face further prosecution. (more citations here)

    4. Perhaps it’s a good thing this is during an election year. There may be enough attention given to it during the primaries that the government has to back down.

      Maybe, I can hope.

      1. Are you high? The left will use the whole episode to try and shut down the federal gazing program.

        1. If the GOP candidates can’t muster up the wherewithal to give this the attention it deserves, then they’re all worthless.

          Oh… I see your point.

          1. A candidate could simply vow to pardon the Hammonds if he’s elected.

        2. It’s interesting how the “no use” policy on the federal lands resulted in less wildlife which preferred the private lands. Honestly, is there anything the government cannot fuck up?

          1. The only potential bright light I see here is the abolition of the federal grazing program coupled with a sell off of all federal lands not designated wildlife refuges or national parks/seashores, with all proceeds used to retire debt.

            They could even sell it all in 40 acre parcels for added lulz.

            1. If nothing else, this would really piss off the ranchers. They love being able to lease grazing rights from the feds. It is way cheaper than actually owning the land.

              I’ve had way too many run ins with local ranchers while hunting in western ND, who think that the grazing lease gives them total rights on the land. They actually know that they can’t stop you from hunting on the land, but they try their best to convince you that it does.

              Actually most of them are pretty good. Only a few are dickheads about it. This poor rancher sure seems like he urinated off someone real good.

            2. If nothing else, this would really piss off the ranchers. They love being able to lease grazing rights from the feds. It is way cheaper than actually owning the land.

              I’ve had way too many run ins with local ranchers while hunting in western ND, who think that the grazing lease gives them total rights on the land. They actually know that they can’t stop you from hunting on the land, but they try their best to convince you that it does.

              Actually most of them are pretty good. Only a few are dickheads about it. This poor rancher sure seems like he urinated off someone real good.

        3. Are you high? The left will use the whole episode to try and shut down the federal gazing program.

          Even Cliven Bundy wants the federal grazing program shut down. Why? Because the federal government shouldn’t be owning this land in the first place.

    5. Shit I posted this below, didn’t realize you had already posted it.

      If even 1/2 the things in that story are true, the whole thing is outrageous.

    6. OMFG! If half of that is true…

  11. “A veteran Israeli reporter, who for decades has been covering the police beat, pointed out the vastly different outcome of Friday’s attack in Tel Aviv as compared with recent Palestinian terrorist attacks in Jerusalem because in Tel Aviv there were no citizen gun carriers nearby to stop the gunman.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..-carriers/

    I included the quote so that y’all would get the point without giving Beck any clicks. The quote sums up the point nicely.

  12. The left-leaning commenters on NPR are calling for drone strikes and other forms of deadly force against these guys.

    Here’s one cunt:
    Ron Sinclair ? 13 minutes ago
    Do these rural cattle ranchers know American history, Ruby Ridge, and Waco??
    They should.
    Pay up. Or Else. Everyone pays taxes and fees. You people have no exemption.

    Another cunt:
    freedumb sings RyanMcpoyle ? 35 minutes ago
    Drone strike!
    2 ? Reply?Share ?

    Another cunt:
    Fisherguy ? an hour ago
    If they’re going to send in the clowns, we should send in the drones to deal with it. See how they like it, shooting at the sky all day.
    1 ? Reply?Share ?

    Biggest cunt on the board:
    abbyroad ? an hour ago
    Drone Strike , Drone Strike , Drone Strike ,
    put Them and us out of this misery
    2 ? Reply?Share ?

    1. #rurallivesdon’tmatter

    2. These are of course the same people who claim to have grave concerns about “Excessive Force” by police because of racism or something

    3. Pay up. Or Else. Everyone pays taxes and fees. You people have no exemption.

      –George Washington, 1791

    4. I’ve been reading/posting there tonight (in particular relation to a few of those quotes).

      I’m not sure that the English language has a single adjective that fully encompasses the NPR commentariat’s particular brand of… wrongness.

      1. “Douchefuckheaded”?

        1. That’s just a translation from the original East Slavic.

      2. “fucktarded?”

  13. Don’t worry everyone, Pa Cartwright and Little Joe are going to ride in any minute now and defuse the situation.

    1. I say they should finally listen to Adam

      1. I was going to link to the great worf rejected montage but fucking cbs has blocked all the videos.

  14. Many media outlets are not reporting these particular facts. Oregon Live’s article, listed as “highly cited” by Google News, mentions only that the protesters opposed the Hammonds’ prosecution and that the father-son duo would be reporting to jail Monday.

    Gropes for his :::shocked::: face.

  15. The left-wingers calling for these guys heads on spikes are terrified because they’re defying the authority of the state and if the authority of the state is so brazenly defied what else might people start questioning?

    The authorities seem to be handling this very well: let them cool their heels in the frozen wilderness and then talk them down. It’s exactly how law enforcement should approach these situations: with the aim of defusing them instead of seeking escalation.

    1. Escalation is all they know. How else are the children going to get to use all their military toys?

      1. These people know how to shoot back.

        It would seem that none of these heroes want to be the first one through the door this time.

        1. If it goes on long enough to be embarrassing, they’ll just firebomb it.

          I do hope those protesters realize this. It’s all fun and games until your structure is set on fire with official permission to shoot anyone who escapes.

    2. “The left-wingers calling for these guys heads on spikes are terrified because they’re defying the authority of the state and if the authority of the state is so brazenly defied what else might people start questioning?”

      And this is why I laugh when I hear someone say that the good ol USA is safe from tyranny because our authorities will never fire on their own citizens.

      1. Exactly. The mob wants blood, always does.

    3. They’re fine with urban rioting against cops because they believe those rioters can be co-opted for their cause and ultimately do not pose a threat even if they can’t be.

      1. Pretty much.

  16. What are the laws on squatting on federal land? Will they give the same deference to these people thT they give to those tree-sitting dickheads?

    1. I think you know the answer

      1. I really don’t know the answer. I wonder what the squatting laws are and how they apply. For all I know, they’re merely trespassing at an unoccupied seasonal federal building. Or they could be there sheltering from weather for all the law knows. And if that’s the case, the Feds should come and offer them a ride to the nearest public accommodation and threaten to charge them with trespassing if they refuse to leave (weather-permitting).

        The fact that they’re armed isn’t relevant since its legal to carry guns on federal lands now. Or, they could have been out hiking with their legally-carried weapons, and gotten caught in the winter storm and sought shelter. If so, it would have been negligent to leave firearms out of their sight so they safely took them inside the shelter with them.

        1. Um, they’ve clearly stated (and advertised) why they’re there and what they’re doing. For your speculative justifications to even be considered you first need to convince people that these guys are lying about what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.

    2. What about damaging federal property?

      I believe it was ELF or some other militant organization that used to “spike” trees in Oregon and Washington so that the saws would break and injure the operators. That seems far more “terrorist” to me that accidentally catching something on fire.

      1. Many of them probably work at the White House today

        1. One of them probably has a best-selling book he ghost-wrote for our current president.

      2. Or occupying an unoccupied Federal building in the middle of nowhere.

        1. “This is a wildlife reserve. Except for the building we constructed, of course.”

      3. It wasn’t just spiking trees. It was also firebombing ranger stations and other offices and private property. The Feds went pretty heavy against those involved. I think most have completed their sentences at this point. Every once in a while there’s some where are they now story. A couple were back in college (presumably not on their own dime since they don’t have any left).

        1. I watched one of those about 5 years ago. A documentary on the fire bombings. One of the guys was convicted for torching some kind of hotel or lodge, with damages in the millions of dollars. They followed him around after his conviction but before his sentencing, and it was pretty clear that the guy had some mental health issues.

          He was staying with his sister and her family, and he went in their pantry and removed all of the labels from the cans so that they could be “properly” recycled. So they were stuck with a few hundred cans of food with no labels, and therefore, no idea what kind of food was in those cans.

          That’s OCD at the very least. Harmless on its own, but it can be a very bad thing if you hang around with a crowd that thinks it’s OK to burn shit down.

      4. My dad used to race dirt bikes in the California desert when he was in his late teens and early 20s. He told me that every time the riders would get together for a race, the enviro-nuts would rig the course with some very dangerous traps. This was over some concern that riding dirt bikes in the desert was going to somehow destroy the ecosystem. They’d just have one guy ride through really slow and pick up the traps immediately before the race.

        1. I wonder if these same people have a problem with what our government does in the desert. There are hundreds of thousands of square miles of no go areas in the Western United States. Unexploded ordinance, nuclear fallout, you name it.

          1. Not now. Now that the Lightbringer is in office. That may change in 2017, if Trump/Cruz/Paul/Rubio/Bugs Bunny is in office.

            1. I’m surprised there’s no call to ban Bugs Bunny. He’s a private property rabbit all the way. Anyone who tried to cover over or eject him from his hole paid dearly.

              “Of course you realize, this means war.”

              1. Don’t fuck with ole’ Bugs……….

                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTM2HQ0g98

  17. Not sure how reliable this source is, but it is a very interesting read on this whole situation with complete history of the situtaion.

    http://theconservativetreehous…..rsecution/

    1. tz says:
      January 3, 2016 at 9:33 am

      There were many embers that failed to ignite before Lexington and Concord. But there was a shot heard round the world. I pray it doesn’t happen, but I hope the candidates will be asked.
      Where are the libertarians?

      Umm…not tipping our hand until it’s necessarily?

      flawesttexas says:
      January 3, 2016 at 10:19 am

      Libertarians are all talk no action?and?generally?anyone who supports Free Trade and Open Borders tend to be anathema to National Sovereignty

      Dude, you need to run those words together…e.g., FreeTrade, OpenBorders, NationalSovereignty, IllegalImmigration. Got it?

      james23 says:
      January 3, 2016 at 10:24 am

      the libertarians? smoking dope, of course

      Quelle dr?le!

      1. The Cosmos give us a bad name to a lot of people who are actually interested in defending individual freedoms. They may not be as sophisticated or as principled as many of us libertarians, but their hearts are generally in the same place.

        I’m personally not an Open Borders libertarian. Sounds great in theory, but a terrible idea. Sort of like convincing your wife to have a threesome.

        1. Sorry, but that’s a bit “I can make fun of my brother, but you can’t!”

          1. Didn’t mean to come across that way, ha.

            I’m just saying I do understand why a lot of these people feel that way about libertarians. I think the major difference is that libertarians will call out and ostracize the racists, bigots and xenophobes immediately, while the conservative type freedom lovers tend to be more tolerant of such people in their midst, so I can see too why many libertarians feel the way they do about the other group.

            Point is, it is too bad that certain subsets of each group give their group a bad name to the other, when in reality the majority in each group have much in common.

            1. I think the major difference is that libertarians will call out and ostracize the racists, bigots and xenophobes immediately

              *takes a dip into the sewer known as comments at Antiwar.com*

              Nope. Not seeing it.

              1. Antiwar.com =/= libertarians. Those are just anti-USG trogs that tell themselves they love peace.

                1. Antiwar.com =/= libertarians.

                  Tell them that.

            2. Then you’re not a libertarian.

              Open borders, to the extent they have been implemented, have always been immensely beneficial.

              1. There are far fewer libertarians than suggested by self-identifying. People don’t want freedom; they want the right kind of tyranny.

              2. Cytotoxic,

                In Canada, yes, because you couldn’t get any worse than Canadians to begin with, so anyone new is going to be a positive, plus your population is incredibly low compared to land mass.

                If being against Open Borders in anything but Libertopia (meaning almost every other libertarian principle needs to be implemented first) makes me not a libertarian, then, well, I honestly don’t give a shit.

                I’d rather be right than be accepted by any group.

                Plus, isn’t ironic that the war-monger is telling people they’re not libertarians?

                1. “I’d rather be right than be accepted by any group.”

                  Right now you’re neither. Open borders = always good, even outside of libertopia.

                  We get Mexicans up here too. Muy hard working.

              3. Cytoxic has spoken. Who was that other guy who used to post here, and decided he was the final arbitrator on who is and its not a “real”libertarian?
                Also, Cytoxic, you sure do love yourself some war, more so, perhaps, than would be expected from a “real” libertarian.

                1. No I don’t. I like peace, that’s why I propose means to achieve it, not passive warmongering ie noninterventionism.

                2. Cytoxic has spoken. Who was that other guy who used to post here, and decided he was the final arbitrator on who is and its not a “real”libertarian?

                  Randian perhaps? He and Toxic are cut from the same bag of vinegar and water.

                  1. “Objectivist” is the term you’re looking for.

                    What kind of bag is made of vinegar and water?

                    1. What kind of bag is made of vinegar and water?

                      What’s the sound of vinegar and water mixing together?

                      *Douche*

                    2. Slightly funny, mostly classless.

                    3. Slightly funny, mostly classless.

                      That’s funny coming from the guy who’s got as much class as school at five in the morning.

                  2. Randian perhaps? He and Toxic are cut from the same bag of vinegar and water.

                    naw the guy I’m thinking of used his real name, used to be involved with the LP…

                  3. Randian perhaps? He and Toxic are cut from the same bag of vinegar and water.

                    naw the guy I’m thinking of used his real name, used to be involved with the LP…

                    1. I don’t remember his views on squirrels…

                    2. naw the guy I’m thinking of used his real name, used to be involved with the LP…

                      Mikey Hihnfection? I don’t think our system has been cleared of that. It is systemic and intractable.

                    3. Yes, Michael Hihn. That’s who I was thinking of. He’s still around?

                    4. He shows up from time to time.

                    5. When he is ready to become ‘unHihnged’.

              4. “Then you’re not a libertarian.

                Open borders, to the extent they have been implemented, have always been immensely beneficial.”

                Retards gonna retard.

              5. This type of thinking is why we frequently deserve the utopian dreamer label we get. Libertarian policy does not exist in a vacuum. It is one thing to say open borders is the goal. It is another to say it should be done now and ignore the costs of minimum wage and welfare programs.

                You can’t impose restrictions on the free market yet expect open immigration to ignore those same restrictions.

                As an aside my mom works for a large corp that owns several hospitals in AZ. Recently she’s observed many small health care practices selling to large health corps because the cost to comply with the electronic medical records provision of ACA. This is a point I don’t think we drive enough: Regulation creates monopolies from health care to mortgages. The only natural monopolies exist due to offering superior value.

              6. Not with a generous welfare state they’re not.

            3. Sounds like you’ve got an open mind. Good.

              Despite the litmus tests that some want to impose (see other opinions in this vicinity) I’ll give any self-proclaimed libertarian ONE mulligan, be it immigration, environmentalism, or hell, even war mongering.

              1. Despite the litmus tests that some want to impose (see other opinions in this vicinity) I’ll give any self-proclaimed libertarian ONE mulligan, be it immigration, environmentalism, or hell, even war mongering.

                You want a Get-Out-Of-Liberty Free card? I get it, for those occasions when principles be damned, this time it’s important!

                Fine. Take it.

                You know, I’ve been called a few names here and there. When people hear that I was at Occupy, there’s a scrum at the door in the rush to assume I’m a progressive liberal. Cosmos have called me a yokel, and the yokels call me a cosmo, and I’ve often been called a hippie and a nerd and a redneck with no small justification.

                None of these names have any significant meaning. We do love our labels, and yet we cannot quite grasp that slapping a label on a thing changes its nature not one whit. People can label me a cosmo, and label themselves a libertarian, and when those labels are inaccurately applied to people they serves as mere soothing words, empty and pointless.

                Call yourself a Cowboys cheerleader for all I care, just don’t be upset if I wait to see your high kick.

            4. “when in reality the majority in each group have much in common.”

              No they (conservatives) don’t. They’ve always got something more important than rolling back government which happens to involve more government. Today’s panic is illegals.

              1. They’d also rather get their war boner on than roll back government.

            5. I think the major difference is that libertarians will call out and ostracize the racists, bigots and xenophobes immediately

              Nope, sorry. Libertarians really don’t care whether other people hold racist, bigoted, or xenophobic beliefs; why should we?

        2. They may not be as sophisticated or as principled as many of us libertarians, but their hearts are generally in the same place.

          I couldn’t disagree more. The Cosmos’ hearts are not in the same place. Their hearts are filled with malice and envy, making them eager to use force against anyone they don’t like. Their idea of freedom is forcing people to do what they want. They despise liberty and they despise justice. In their ideal world no one could act without asking permission and obeying orders (from them of course). They are slavers. Plain and simple.

          1. I see you’ve double-downed on the anti-gay marriage butthurt. He’s been infected by the John!

            1. THE RED HERRING DID IT! THE RED HERRING DID IT!

              1. What a twist!

            1. He’s still pissy about gay marriage.

              1. It’s funny. I think the only thing I’ve ever disagreed with you about (other than some of your movie choices, but agree with many) is foreign policy. I think the only thing I’ve ever disagreed with sarc about was gay marriage.

                I guess most here would call me a Cosmo (although I prefer the term libertarian). So, I’m confused, is sarc placing himself in the yokel camp? If we agree on nearly everything, why is he labeling himself a Republican?

                Don’t get it.

                1. Maybe I’m thinking Cosmo means something else. If so that’s my bad.

                  1. To me Cosmotarian means the sort of people who emphasize those aspects of libertarianism that in theory would appeal to the beltway/metropolitan class; the reason for doing this is supposedly to keep getting invited to the cocktail parties.

                    That having been said, I also think it gets used by those pissed that H&R won’t cover their particular pet issue enough (Rotherham, immigration, Ebola, or the like).

                    1. Cosmotarian is a slur that’s mostly used by idiots who are afraid of filthy brown people and by the Lew Rockwell crowd. It doesn’t really mean anything.

                    2. I thought that was cuckservative.

                    3. That means roughly the same thing, but it’s used by an even dumber bunch of retards.

                    4. No, Cosmos are supposed libertarians who are all too happy to have big government when it supports issues that are popular among liberals.

                      Government funded abortion for instance. While iibertarians disagree on abortion, you can’t really suggest the government fund it.

                      Gay marriage is another. The libertarian position towards marriage is that the government shouldn’t be involved, much less the government fining people for refusing to cater their marriages.

                      Open borders is pretty much a libertarian position, so if they left it at that, fine. But where Cosmos go too far is wanting the government to pay for refugees to come here.

                      And also bringing up the racism card constantly. Hrrr hrr, you don’t like “Brown people” because you don’t believe in open borders or are in favor of bombing ISIS/Al Qaeda

                      Even though most the supposed “brown people” are actually white, or no darker than an Italian. Indeed, they are labeled as “white” on the US Census.

                    5. OMFG!

                      You show me an alleged cosmo who supports:

                      Government funded abortion
                      government fining people for refusing to cater their marriages.

                    6. My thoughts on the definitions:

                      Yokel- A Republican who has a few libertarian tendencies, none of which stem from libertarian first principles.

                      Cosmo- A Yokel slur on people who follow libertarian principles, even when it means not agreeing with Republican positions. (IOW, a libertarian)

                    7. Hm. Never heard either of those words used that way. In a political sense that is.

                    8. When I hear ‘Cosmo’, I think Kramer, or Topper.

                2. Sarc cherishes his hatreds. I wouldn’t read too much into it.

                  1. Go do some squats.

                    1. I will indeed, thanks. I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up, but thank you regardless.

                    2. If those were pics of his legs here a couple of months ago he needs calf extensions not squats.

                  2. Don’t we all cherish hating Sarc? 😉

          2. Oh, this is rich. Go on. Please.

        3. “…a terrible idea. Sort of like convincing your wife to have a threesome.”

          That depends on the third party. And the wife.

      2. OK, if you don’t support free trade, you can count this libertarian out. I want no part of your revolution.

        1. Seconded

      3. Where are the Libertarians? At the ranch with guns.

  18. Progs are hurt that peoples are disobeying their centralized state.

  19. I’m drunk and reading/posting about this on NPR.

    It’s pretty scary how many people see themselves as forward thinkers are foaming at the mouth for these folks to get put in the dirt.

    1. Yeah it’s terrifying how out of touch with reality the American progressive crowd is. Their ability to project their own faults and prejudices onto others knows no bounds.

      1. Also: take care that you don’t get put on a watchlist.

        Good night and good luck!

  20. Lunatics take over federal building:

    http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapu……28-PM.png

  21. Did they remember to bring a wood chipper?

  22. Left out of Ed’s hagiography of the Hammonds
    1) the fire was set to hide illegal hunting on Federal property
    2) the Hammonds lied about the fire until a cousin flipped on them
    3) they are not first time offenders, having set an earlier fire a few years before
    4) they got lucky their fire did not engulf a larger area
    5) and, lastly, brandishing weapons, while trespassing on govt property and threatening to murder folks are felonies.

    It’s funny how many of you here are “it’s okay if white rural folks do it.”

    1. 1, 2 and 5….citation needed
      3…why is this relevant here and what were the circumstances?
      4 this is speculation on your part and isnt relevant

    2. 1) You’re not going to find that shouting “illegal” gets you much traction here.

    3. Also not sure i understand your last comment about white rural folks….what???

    4. 1. Says you. Any proof?
      2. No they didn’t
      3. Setting fires they way they did is not illegal you jackass, it’s accepted best practice for managing prairie land.
      4. Their fire put out a wildfire.
      5. It’s not the government’s property, it’s the people’s. Having a weapon is not the same as brandishing one. No one has threatened to kill anyone.
      6. Fuck off slaver.

      1. Im guessing timber wont respond

        1. I’m guessing (albeit early) it’s Tulpa.

          1. That was my first thought, too.

          2. No, it’s this guy:

            https://twitter.com/timb116

        2. If it’s Tulpa then it will be responding into next week.

          1. But not to this thread until another Reason post is up and we’ve all moved on to post in its comments.

            1. It’s not as if we’re all commenting in Star Wars thread #36482839482785862837.

              1. Are you starting said Starwars thread? 🙂 just finished a marathon of the first six. Favorite character: Palpatine/Obama.

      2. Not just that – but the *Hammonds* have done no such thing.

  23. Without knowing anything about the specifics of the case, I’ll just say that it’s generally good when people tell the feds to fuck themselves. They can’t firebomb everyone who does it.

    1. They’ll certainly try.

    2. ” They can’t firebomb everyone who does it.”

      Sort of depends on the ratio of persons doing it to firebombs to hand.

  24. They were making a firebreak to prevent the spread of wildfires from lightning strikes, which was a pretty bad problem. If anything, they reduced the extent of the damage. The county fire chief was in agreement, saying they did what the ranchers always been doing, and it’s how he would have done it in their place. The prosecution was just the culmination of a lengthy program of harrassment by Fish and Game over their unwillingness to turn over management of their property to the Refuge. They went so far as to refuse to permit the argument that wildlife did better under their management than it did under Fish and Game.

    For what it’s worth, the armament of the protestors at the march was widely exaggerated. I saw maybe one in ten carrying a weapon, not particularly noteworthy in an area where I observed several other unrelated local persons about business nearby that were also armed, and not unusually so.

    As far as them occupying the Refuge, there’s no reason for a police response except to enforce their authority. Also not uncommon here, where a lone Indian in the desert acting kind of crasy, with a gun, will excite several police agencies to get out their riot gear and start a big fucking confrontation over it.

    And there was an old man pushing a cart across the desert that come through a year or two back. He got attacked by BLM agents for camping by the side of the road, which they justified by saying they couldn’t be sure he wasn’t a terrorist.

  25. Also, the loud mouths among the protestors are kind of a bunch of posers.

  26. OT: Looks like you guys were right all along

  27. As a liberal, on the whole, I mostly agree with this article. Except to the extent that it tries to minimize the crime that has been committed here.

    First of all, I agree with the sentiment that the Justice Department should not have sought to increase the penalties faced by the Hammonds. The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. The fact that mandatory minimums often leads to punishments that do not fit the crime is a big part of the explanation for why.

    Second, I do not think that the militia groups ought to be condemned for exercising their Second Amendment rights. However, there is no denying that responsible exercise of Second Amendment rights means recognizing that threats of violence or actions like trespass and occupation made while armed are inherently more serious and dangerous.

    Here, we have a group of armed protestors who are engaging in what they intend to be a long-term theft of government property and using the threat of violence to maintain what is ultimately an untenable position. Hopefully, we can find a solution to this crisis that does not lead to bloodshed and yet does result in criminal punishment for those responsible for organizing this fiasco. Unless we are prepared for people regularly engaging in armed occupations of government buildings, then this situation, unfortunately, requires some level of punishment.

    1. Just be consistent. Next black lives matter protest or sit in at a public university = mass arrests and severe punishment.

      Sorry, no special rules for lefties.

  28. I thought property rights were some of the few rights libertarians/Libertarians actually believed in? Or do they suddenly evaporate when it’s the government’s property rights being violated?

    But hey, maybe I’ll give this a go if I ever run afoul of the law. Get a bunch of my buddies with guns to break into some federal building and squat until I’m released. That’s an appropriate course of action in response to a prison sentence, right?

    1. But libertarians don’t believe in government, particularly the federal government, owning this land. There’s no constitutional authority for the acts which created this ownership. There’s an establishment of property rights are the very root of left/right discussions, and the impounding of “unowned” land as being “federal” land is at the very center of the discussion of “rights”. So, just as the Molly McGuires had their positions, so these fellows have theirs. But, I assume you’d squeeze out tears for the Mollies but loathe these fellows. Tyranny is the ABUSE, and it comes in many forms. Libertarians recognize this.

      The locking down of the individual, and forcing him or her to be a work-slave to The State was perfected when the US Government took unowned lands and forbade living outside of the “system”. Poaching was manufactured out of thin air and free people were turned into criminals. If you own land, you will be taxed and are really just renting the land and are a form of indentured servant. If you endeavor live outside that system, you are now a criminal “stealing” from the government. All of which has come about in the last fifty years or so. Just another link in the chain that has turned this country into a corpora-fascistic shit hole. We are being herded into serf-collectives, slowly but surely.

  29. “Federal land” shouldn’t even be a thing.

  30. Please cease and desist using the term “armed protesters.” The legal definition of terrorism specifically includes acts that “Appear intended? to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” The Bundy gang are terrorists.

    1. Samuel Adams was our first terrorist.

      Take your “guns are scary” routine elsewhere. The people here don’t buy the argument that invoking our rights = terrorism.

  31. Injun loggers getting paid in white lightning, lot of funny stuff going on. Big fed bust coming unless cowboy hats back off.

  32. Ok so let me get this right. These two farmers started a fire and it spread to Federal Lands. They were found guilty and a judge added on to their sentence, right? Well from what I’ve read they did commit the crime of Arson to cover up illegal hunting. They did not and are not contesting either their original sentence or the added on time. So the Bundy’s and their armed buddies decided to what? Protest for the two farmers? By the way from several articles I’ve read the farmers who are at the center of this do not want the Bundy’s help or presence. Schools have been closed due to the armed protesters. On top of this there is a request from the Bandyites for food…. Umm yeah, these folks are dumb. Please Oregon Governor arrest them before their stupidity ends someone’s life.
    http://freakoutnation.com/2016…..-you-here/

    1. Well that is a very proggy way of looking at it.

  33. When govt causes a problem it follows different rules

    http://billingsgazette.com/new…..c6286.html

    By ROB CHANEY Missoulian
    Apr 29, 2012

  34. Brilliant! Bomb the Middle East for Jesus, and when the vengeful Saracen discovers that a box of matches can burn fields and forests claimed by that federal political state elected by secret ballot–jail a bunch of American cowherds! Charlie Chaplin couldn’t have done better.

    1. If you’re trying to be like Agile Cyborg, just stop. Your shit is just painful to read.

      1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

        Clik This Link inYour Browser….

        ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.Com

  35. These people are the intellectual, spiritual, and moral heirs of the Students for a Democratic Society.

  36. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.