Portland Protests

ACLU Sues Federal Agents Deployed in Portland

The ACLU of Oregon says it's the first of many lawsuits regarding the Trump administration's deployment of federal law enforcement to Portland.

|

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon filed the first of what it says will be many lawsuits today over the Trump administration's use of federal law enforcement to violently quell weeks-long protests and unrest in Portland, Oregon, over the police killing of George Floyd.

The ACLU of Oregon's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeks a temporary restraining order against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and U.S. Marshals deployed to Portland from assaulting press and legal observers.

"This is a fight to save our democracy," Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon. "Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation. These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city. We will continue to bring the full fire power of the ACLU to bear until this lawless policing ends."

DHS Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, who visited Portland on Thursday, says the federal law enforcement officers are protecting the city's federal courthouse and other property from "violent anarchists."

"The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city," Wolf said in a lengthy statement issued by DHS Thursday. "Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it." 

However, news reports and videos from the protest have raised significant civil liberties concerns. Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) reported yesterday that federal law enforcement agents wearing camouflage uniforms—and lacking any identifying insignia—were driving around Portland in unmarked vehicles, grabbing protesters off the street, and detaining them.

Last weekend, federal law enforcement officers shot a protester in the head with a non-lethal munition, fracturing his skull. The man was hospitalized and required facial reconstruction surgery.

The agents are reportedly from the U.S. Marshals Service and CBP's BORTAC team, which the Trump administration has deployed under a June 26 executive order to protect monuments. 

Democratic Oregon officials, including Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and Gov. Kate Brown, have denounced the actions of federal law enforcement agents and demanded the Trump administration withdraw them.

"I told the acting secretary that my biggest immediate concern is the violence federal officers brought to our streets in recent days, and the life-threatening tactics his agents use," Wheeler said. "We do not need or want their help."

Brown called Trump's deployment of federal agents "political theater" and a "blatant abuse of power by the federal government."

Democratic Oregon lawmakers in Congress—Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden, with Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Suzanne Bonamici—also called today for the DHS Office of Inspector General to investigate what Wyden called "paramilitary assaults."

"It's painfully clear this administration is focused purely on escalating violence without answering my repeated requests for why this expeditionary force is in Portland and under what constitutional authority," Wyden said in a press release. "Simply put, the Office of Inspector General must investigate Trump's assault on Americans' constitutional rights now." 

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, Billy Williams, a Trump appointee, has also called for an inspector general investigation into the action of the agents.

"Based on news accounts circulating that allege federal law enforcement detained two protesters without probable cause, I have requested the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General to open a separate investigation directed specifically at the actions of DHS personnel," Williams said in a statement.

The ACLU of Oregon's lawsuit says federal law enforcement attacked two journalists, Mathieu Lewis-Rolland and Garrison Davis, with non-lethal rounds, despite their being clearly marked as press.

"They also chased away legal observers affiliated with the National Lawyers' Guild by threatening to beat them with batons," the lawsuit says.

The ACLU of Oregon argues that the same court already issued an identical temporary restraining order on July 2 against the Portland Police Department.

"The federal agents are aware of the Court's TRO, but have taken the position that they need not comply, which has once again placed press and legal observers in peril," the lawsuit says.

CBP declined to comment on the ACLU's lawsuit.

NEXT: Discussing the Supreme Court on "Supreme Myths" with Eric Segall

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. I hope they Nuke Portland

    1. Last I checked, Portland was a part of America as well.

      1. OK, get Eric Swalwell to do it.

        1. “OK, get Eric Swalwell to do it.”

          Snort, snafle, chuckle. Nice.

          1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page…

            ==================► Home Profit System

          2. The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it usually turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

            Antifa Rioters Break Into Portland Police Union and Set It on Fire

            Quote:
            On Saturday evening, two groups of antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters terrorized Portland, squaring off against police and federal troops. One group attacked the Portland Police Bureau’s North Precinct and the Portland Police Association (PPA) — the police union — while the other group targeted the federal courthouse and Justice Center, returning to set yet another bonfire at the ruins of the elk statue nearby.

            At about 10:45 p.m., antifa rioters broke into the PPA office and ignited a fire inside.

            1. It’s just a few bad apples…

        2. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE► Click For Full Detail.

        3. ITT, Lying Jeffy and white knight admit that they won’t click links to evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

          1. And now they keep asking for the exact same evidence they’ve refused to look at.

          2. As I’ve explained, and you apparently refuse to acknowledge, it was never my belief that BLM is not advancing Marxist goals.

            You are no longer debating in good faith.

      2. Only when it’s convenient.

      3. And you’re a fucking Marxist sympathizer.

        1. You are completely unhinged, my man. When has chemjeff ever even mentioned Marx, let alone promote any of Marx’s theories? The word “Marxist” has become a meaningless bugaboo word, thrown at your enemies like feces.

          1. He repeatedly claims that people that call themselves Marxists aren’t Marxists.

            Maybe Marxist denialist is a better term? Fine, I’ll use that from now on.

            1. Marxist is thrown around all too easily. Not communists are Stalinists, not all Marxists are communists, not all socialists are Marxists, not all statists are socialists, not all libertarians are statists. All statists want to tell everybody else how to live, but few actually want gulags and genocide on the scale of Stalinsts.

              A little more precision is desirable.

              1. The founder of BLM was asked directly what philosophical beliefs BLM was founded on. She said Marxism. Several of the stated goals of BLM coincide with Marxism.

                You wanna join up with Lying Jeffy and his crew and ignore those facts so that you can be a White Knight for BLM, go right ahead. Unless you have something besides sophistry to refute those facts, you’re wasting your time trying to convince me otherwise.

                1. This stuff has been repeated a lot, so let’s get specific. There is more than one founder, so whom are we talking about precisely?

                  1. Fuck you. The link to the video of the interview has been provided several times. Now you’ve just told on yourself that you never clicked on it and just went right on arguing anyway.

                    I don’t care if you think BLM is Marxist or not, you’ve made it clear you’ve made your decision on the matter.

                    1. True, I never clicked on it.

                      I’ve also never said I didn’t think BLM has Marxist goals. I never have.

                      I have only pushed back on sloppy use of guilt by association in many comments here.

                    2. “True, I never clicked on it.”

                      Then why are you asking for the evidence now and dishonestly claiming you’re not aware of it after you ignored it before? Everyone knows the answer.

                    3. Utter bullshit! Why don’t you just be HONEST and admit that you hate BLM, and stop the stupid smokescreen!

                      ALL of the “founding fathers” of the USA, and ALL of it’s founding CITIZENS, for that matter, are DEAD! By your stupid R-Mac-Style non-logic, all USA-Americans are DEAD, then!

                      Pythagoras, the inventor/discoverer of the Pythagorean Theorem, was a cult leader. https://listverse.com/2017/04/26/10-strange-facts-about-pythagoras-mathematician-and-cult-leader/#:~:text=10%20Pythagoras%20Led%20A%20Cult%20That%20Worshiped%20Numbers&text=Numbers%2C%20Pythagoras%20believed%2C%20were%20the,were%20sacred%E2%80%94almost%20like%20gods.

                      Then those of us who believe the Pythagorean Theorem must all be cultists! By YOUR flavor of stupid!

                      Why don’t you just admit that you hate BLM, and leave it at that? Or tell us your REAL reasons why you hate BLM?

                    4. Lol. You don’t even realize you’re satirizing Jeff.

                2. Actually, here’s a pretty good, balanced article on it:
                  https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/

                  1. Brad Polumbo is a retarded pedophile and that article is terrible.

                    1. The chemjeff/white knight/sqrlsy/eunuch squad holds pedophiles in high regard

                    2. chemtard did whine about immigrant child molesters not being able to come to the US legally; these types tend to stick up for their own, which is why he also whines whenever people don’t knuckle under to left-wing mobs.

                    3. I have to say, some of you guys are kind of amazing.

                      I find an article on a libertarian website that gives an overview of BLM’s ties to Marxism. The writer is some guy named Brad Polumbo, who I’ve never heard of. I’ve never heard of a lot of writers.

                      Bam! You guys claim to know who he is and have a whole dossier in your head on his past pedophile activities.

                    4. chemtard did whine about immigrant child molesters not being able to come to the US legally;

                      I believe his argument was that accused pedophiles should be able to petition for asylum in the case that a potentially bogus charge could prevent someone from getting out of a bad situation. e.g. “don’t accept that guy as a refugee, he’s a pedophile”. e.g. “don’t listen to Chemjeff, he’s a pedophile.”

                    5. Sorry brand new not obvious rando sockpuppet of Jeff defending Jeff, but no. He argued that convicted pedos should be ok too.

                    6. Bam! You guys claim to know who he is

                      Actually, Sidd appears to be the only one who claims to know anything about him. Looking at it after a Google search, Sidd’s accusations are discussed in several places, I won’t comment on their accuracy but suffiice it to say Sidd did not make it up whole cloth and, I find Sidd to be generally well informed.

                      So you seem to be upset that Sidd was both informed and possibly accurate?

                    7. No, jeffs argument was that asylum requesters who rape children while on US soil awaiting hearing still deserve asylum, and the US doesn’t have the right to refuse

                    8. My argument with regards to asylum, is and always has been that requests for asylum should be evaluated based on what was done TO the individual, not on what was done BY the individual.

                      There are saints who are oppressed by wicked governments, and there are also sinners who are oppressed by wicked governments.

                      If your argument is that requests for asylum should only be granted for saints who are oppressed, then it gives free license to the wicked governments to oppressed everyone who is not saintly enough to meet the threshold.

                      What happens after a claim of asylum is evaluated is a completely different matter.

                    9. I stand corrected.

                      “What happens after a claim of asylum is evaluated is a completely different matter.”

                      So please clarify what should happen to an obvious pedophile who successfully petitions and is granted asylum to come to this country? What if he was being persecuted by his wicked government for being a pedophile among other things such has being subversive?

                    10. Convicting someone of a crime is not per se oppression (unless it’s some bullshit crime like ‘criticizing the government’). I’m talking about things like torture. So if any criminal is convicted and imprisoned for a crime, that’s fine. If a criminal is then tortured, then that’s not fine. That person IMO would have a legitimate claim for asylum based on the torture, not based on any criminal activity that the individual committed.

                      Asylum ought to be based on what is done TO the individual, not what is done BY the individual.

                    11. So a vicious murderer and rapist who is tortured by his government should be able to get asylum here? You made the statement that what happens after asylum is a completely different matter. Well, what should be done to contain such a person after asylum is granted? Surely they shouldn’t be allowed to roam the country freely. Why should I pay tax dollars to allow such a person to enter (or house them in a US prison)? It seems to me you are willing to judge a government as wicked but not an individual.

                    12. “So you seem to be upset that Sidd was both informed and possibly accurate?”

                      No, not upset. Kind of impressed at the hard work some people here put into having talking points ready and discrediting information ready at their fingertips.

                    13. Also, though, I don’t know Brad Polumbo from Adam. I wasn’t advancing the argument that he is a good person.

                      I though it was a good article, and I’m not sure whatever pedophilic status Brad has is relevant to judging the article. But, hey, it’s impressive that Sidd had discrediting info about him at his fingertips.

                    14. Woah, woah, woah. I’ve heard this “pedophile Jeffy” thing hundreds of times now. You are telling me it is about some theoretical argument about pedophiles, not chemjeff actually engaging in pedophilia?!

                      You’re shitting me. Really?

                      Anybody using the “pedophile Jeffy” line should be deeply, deeply ashamed of themselves.

                    15. Kind of impressed at the hard work some people here put into having talking points ready and discrediting information ready at their fingertips.

                      Weird how a right winger knows about the people trying to cancel right wingers. How strange.

                      And that article is dogshit. I learned nothing about a topic I have little interest in. Well, I guess that’s impressive in a way.

                    16. Sidd, is your last comment correctly understood as your self identifying as a “right winger”?

                    17. Is your last comment correctly identifying you as stupid?

                  2. Yes, on the grounds that putting someone in a hellhole prison in a shithole country is a violation of their rights, regardless of what they were convicted of. Apparently all convicts everywhere are entitled to incarceration that meets US standards.

                  3. Nail
                    July.18.2020 at 1:03 pm
                    Sorry brand new not obvious rando sockpuppet of Jeff defending Jeff, but no. He argued that convicted pedos should be ok too.

                    Dude seriously wtf ? FYI that is not me. Of all people’s handles to impersonate why mine ? This is bullshit.

                    1. Nail
                      July.18.2020 at 1:03 pm

                      ^^^To the retard above who decided to impersonate my handle (it’s pretty obvious who you are); you are a fucking loser.

                    2. Tulpa is broken. He’s become completely schitzo.

                  4. Bam! White knight white knights someone out of ignorance and looks like a moron again.

                    1. Huh? Why do I look like a moron?

                      I linked to an article. It’s a pretty good article. I know nothing about the author.

                3. Even if that person is a Marxist, it doesn’t mean everyone protesting continued police brutality is a Marxist. And it doesn’t provide justification for continued police brutality against peaceful protesters. (Or rather “police” brutality, since calling those militarized Federal troops police is questionable.)

                  1. I never said a single thing you’re arguing against here. Your straw man game is strong.

                    1. R Mac, this is a public comments section, and lots of people make comments here. There are people who have made claims just like Dan S. talked about.

                      When you jump in and start arguing with someone like Dan. S, making a generic statement that wasn’t directly addressing you, we may not be addressing something YOU have said.

                    2. He was responding to my comment retard. You know you can follow those little lines to the left of a comment up and it’ll show you who someone’s responding to?

                  2. Fuck off. The feds didn’t do jack shit for over a month while these tards set about burning shit, tearing down statues, and destroying private property.

                    You know what happened? The “peaceful protesters” (a flat-out lie, since they’ve been violent this entire time) decided to get spicy against a federal building.

                    You, White Knight, and chemtard are literally arguing that the feds don’t have jurisdiction to defend against and arrest people that damage federal property. Do you really not see how clueless that belief is? Do you really think the feds are going to just sit back and let a bunch of anarcho-commies burn down and destroy federal property? Grow the fuck up.

                    1. And honestly, if you DO actually think the feds should just let this go because of “systemic racism” like chemtard was arguing, then you’re not actually a libertarian, you’re an anarchist. Which is fine, but then don’t go crying when someone decides that an anarchic state means they can fuck YOUR shit up for any reason they like.

                    2. You are an idiot if you think there are no peaceful protesters. You are an idiot if you think 100,000 actual looting and vandalizing rioters wouldn’t do more damage and get a lot more attention from even city cops.

                    3. And you’re an idiot for ignoring what actually was going on versus your stupid hypothetical scenario.

                    4. So in order to characterize a violent mob as a “violent mob” every participant must individually engage in a specific act of violence?

                    5. “So in order to characterize a violent mob as a ‘violent mob’ every participant must individually engage in a specific act of violence?”

                      Depends. Why do you even need to characterize a group of people in the first place?

                      Are you an author writing a book, and you’re trying to give a general description of the group? Go for it.

                      Are you a lawyer, trying to charge someone with a crime just because they were in the same group as other people who were being violent — what’s your case against the actual individual being tried?

                      Are you a partisan trying to advance a narrative by using guilt by association. Total b.s. collectivist, non-libertarian thinking.

                    6. White knight, you should really think about spending some money on a decent therapist. You got problems.

                      It is what it is

                4. On the one hand, you assume all BLM people are the same, which is stupid.

                  On the second hand, you assume all BLM people are too stupid and evil to do anything except loot, yet you also assume they know precisely what Marxism is.

                  On the third hand, you assume Marxism itself is as evil as Stalinism or Communism. Life really is full of shades of gray. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change that, it just makes you look stupid and fixated.

                  1. Technically, woke progressives thinks minorities are too incompetent to do much of anything on their own. They need their white saviors.

                    1. Hey now! Getting a picture ID is really hard.

              2. “Marxist” is right at all. The BLM lesbos can barely read. Antifa all looks like adult FLK’s. To the extent there’s any real ideology it’s 20th century an-com, but it’s mostly just being shitty.

                1. To bring up another old often misunderstood bugaboo, cultural Marxism, I’d love to read Marcuse on BLM BAMN antifa etc.

                  1. I would say what’s happening now is more like Mao’s cultural revolution. The struggle sessions are real.

                  2. Inconvenient facts are now “bugaboos”.
                    And what is misunderstood about it? I understand it perfectly, and have explained it to Jeff a half dozen times, each ignored.
                    Cultural Marxism is the same odious collectivist struggle pitting outgroups against their supposed oppressors, only substithguting cultural Identity for economic Class

                    1. And what is misunderstood about it?

                      Everything, because nobody’s actually read any of that crap. And the thing’s attributed to it were fully in place in the US by the 60’s at the latest, well before the Frankfurt School was widely known.

                    2. Here’s another line of evidence: the one meme from the Frankfurt school I can think of that’s widely known — the authoritarian personality — is almost never mentioned even though it’s obviously bullshit with any inspection.

                    3. Oh, but someone has. More than just a few someones.
                      Just because you can’t or won’t understand or even acknowledge something doesn’t make it incomprehensible.
                      If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and squawks like a duck and walks around squawking ” I am a proud Marxist duck” , maybe the problem is with you and Jeffy who like to pretend ducks don’t exist

                    4. The retards behind BLM are too stupid to understand Horkheimer. You’re giving these people way too much credit.

                    5. Sidd, they believe in totalitarian collectivism.
                      Their comprehension of the finer points within the theoretical constructs historically thought up to justify it is immaterial.
                      They believe and behave as Marxists

                    6. They act like a low IQ lunatic mob. The labor theory of value doesn’t have a damn thing to do with their cause.

                    7. These aren’t NYC Jews in the 30’s and using the same term to describe them obscures more than it reveals.

                    8. Marxism is a term commonly associated with communism, most prominently featuring the USSR and Cuba as examples. It’s a label most people can identify as attribute a specific ideology.
                      As such, it’s useful to communicate the identification of a group or behavior with certain motives and goals.
                      I think it does the opposite of obscure; indeed, it’s clarifying.

                      The labor theory of value as the defining feature of marxism is a fine topic for academic debate, but how do you think the term misleads when applied to the distinctly leftist protestriots involving antifa-BLM prominently?

                      When I use “marx[ism/ist]” I’m designating an ideology, and perspective, that is:
                      -totalitarian (demands not just action, but belief)*
                      -leftist
                      -collectivist
                      -considers people as interchangeable subunits of identity classes involved that exist for the purpose of waging perpetual class warfare
                      -system designed to forcibly (NOT voluntarily) redistrubte wealth/resources from productive units to underperforming members, as determined by academic/bureaucratic consensus**
                      -moral/ethical relativism or absolutism based on superficial class

                      They’re pretty explicit about that.

                      The labor theory of value is not conscious belief for most, but its moral is. It exists as a moral force, as a vehicle for a certain subconscious will and emotional inclination.

                      These things are brought to mind when one hears “marx[ism/ist]”.
                      Is your objection merely that they are ignorant of theory and history of their faith?
                      In many ways, the current marxists are the purest of marxists – sheer, unconscious will.

                      What alternative term do you offer?

                      *Marxism (communism/socialism/fascism/Nazism) and theocracy (such as Islamism) are two types of progressivism. Social democracy is a mix of progressivism, democracy, and capitalism (with variable proportions of each depending on locale)
                      **celebrity is an almost priestly type of unit whose function is to both interpret and dictate the will of the mob

              3. Marxist is thrown around all too easily. Not communists are Stalinists, not all Marxists are communists, not all socialists are Marxists … A little more precision is desirable.

                I’m trying to be precise in how I use the term:

                – BLM is a Marxist organization.
                – Social justice ideology is a neo-Marxist ideology.
                – Bernie Sanders and his followers, the squad, and others are declared socialists; as proponents of social justice ideology, they are also neo-Marxist.
                – Antifa is a communist organization.

                Marxism, neo-Marxism, socialism, communism, and Stalinism (and for that matter, fascism) are related to each other, but they are not identical. All of them are evil, totalitarian ideologies, each in their own right.

                All statists want to tell everybody else how to live, but few actually want gulags and genocide on the scale of Stalinsts.

                No statists want gulags and genocide. But certain totalitarian ideologies reliably produce gulags and genocide, among them all the aforementioned ideologies.

                There are totalitarian ideologies that don’t usually produce gulags and genocide, for example Abrahamic theocracies and monarchies.

                not all libertarians are statists. All statists want to tell everybody else how to live,

                Libertarians are not “statists” and don’t want to tell anybody how to live.

            2. He pretends other people don’t understand what Marxist means, when given the definition he pretends it is either too concise or too elaborate, then when given examples, he ignores them.

            3. That is a lie. I have never claimed that a few BLM founders weren’t marxist. What I have claimed is that their statements in the past do not matter nearly as much as what the organization does in the present day. And I bring up Reason itself as an example. THe founder of Reason was a pretty hardcore libertarian. The institution of Reason today is a bit softer around the edges which is totally fine. So if we are to judge Reason as an institution, is it what the founders believed or is it what the institution is today? Which is the fairer way to judge Reason in the present day? Chipper is right, the would Marxism is thrown around like a scary word as if everyone who shows up to protest police brutality is the same as a person who wants the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie. It is far easier to put the scary label on the people you don’t like and to just tell people to stay away from the scary people with The Scarlet Letter than it is to actually have a substantive debate over the issues with which you disagree. Ironically this is exactly what leftists do when they throw around carelesly terms like racist or transphobic just to shut down debate rather than to have a meaningful discussion. Congratulations you’re doing the same damn thing.

              1. And I’ve explained several times why the Reason comparison isn’t apt, and you ignore it every time. You are incapable of arguing in good faith.

                1. No, you dismiss a perfectly legitimate comparison because it demonstrates the bankruptcy of your argument.

                  Should an organization be judged by what it does in the present day, or what its founders said several years ago?

                  You can’t answer this question honestly and straighforwardedly because you know it belies the entire premise of your argument.

                  And you, and Sidd, and a bunch of others throw around Marxism as nothing more than a Scarlet Letter to tag people you don’t like instead of as any sort of accurate label. You can’t have an honest discussion on the merits so you resort to name-calling. Typical.

                  1. Reason was founded 52 years ago. The libertarian founder is currently dead. BLM was founded 7 years. The Marxist founder is currently the strategic advisor, and has said, in her own words recently, that Marxism is a founding philosophy of the group.

                    Another founder, Alicia Garza, is currently the Special Project Director for The National Domestic Alliance. https://www.domesticworkers.org/

                    1. It doesn’t matter if the individuals concerned are dead or alive. Again you cannot answer the question in a straightforward manner:

                      Should an organization be judged by what it does in the present day, or what its founders said several years ago?

                      You want to continually harp on what some founders said rather than pay any attention to what the organization itself does. Because that makes it easier to tag the whole thing as MARXIST!!!! and to turn people away from it without having to go through the work of addressing the issues involved.

                      If this era really is a redux of 1960’s civil rights activism, then your strategy of labeling people as BAD AND SCARY isn’t going to work any more than it worked by the likes of people like J. Edgar Hoover labeling MLK as a communist. In the end, what mattered more were the images of Bull Connor sending the dogs and firehoses against little girls in pigtails, rather than if MLK was or was not a communist. You should get that through your head, and if you do not want to see a completely left-wing solution to the civil rights problems of the current day, then you should start offering some solutions of your own to the legitimate problems that are faced by minority communities instead of this completely stupid BUT THEY’RE MARXISTS!!!! bullshit.

                    2. BAD AND SCARY

                    3. In other words, in the current climate, the video of George Floyd being murdered by the police matters way more than whatever Alicia Garza said about Marxism or anything else.

                    4. Both things can be true, unless you’re a simpleton.

                      And the video that’s been linked to several times is of Patrisse Khan-Cullors saying it was founded on Marxism, not Alicia Garza. But thanks for admitting you never watched the video either, and continue to argue in bad faith, just like your white knight.

                    5. Both things can be true, unless you’re a simpleton.

                      They CAN be true, but they’re not.

                      What makes you think you will be more successful than J. Edgar Hoover in stopping the civil rights movement when he was labeling MLK and his associates as commie pinkos?

                      In the current climate, it doesn’t matter what Patrisse Khan-Cullors says or doesn’t say about Marxism. In the current climate, it doesn’t matter what Alicia Garza says or doesn’t say about Marxism.

                      And can you answer this simple question?

                      Should an organization be judged by what it does in the present day, or what its founders said several years ago?

                    6. “If this era really is a redux of 1960’s civil rights activism”

                      And if you think that is anything close to a sane perspective, you’re psychotic and a useful idiot

                    7. And no I didn’t watch the video of Patrisse Khan-Cullors saying she’s a Marxist. Because it doesn’t fucking matter. It wouldn’t matter if she said she was a free market capitalist. It wouldn’t matter if she showed up with full hammer-and-sickle gear. It wouldn’t matter if she showed up with a copy of Milton Friedman’s book. This entire attempt to argue over whether BLM is Marxist is just a giant distraction, a dishonest attempt to change the subject and avoid talking about the important issues associated with racial injustice.

                      If BLM really was a Marxist organization, would that make the problems of racial injustice go away?

                    8. And no I didn’t watch the video of Patrisse Khan-Cullors saying she’s a Marxist. Because it doesn’t fucking matter.

                      “IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE FOUNDER OF A POLITICAL MOVEMENT SAYS WHAT THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS ARE!”

                    9. I thought you were kidding but that is what he actually thinks.

                    10. Now you’ve just gone full retard Jeff. I’m not J. Edgar Hoover. BLM isn’t MLK Jr, and he never said he was a Marxist.

                      And then you admit you are intentionally ignoring evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

                      If you had any shame, you’d be feeling it now.

                    11. “IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE FOUNDER OF A POLITICAL MOVEMENT SAYS WHAT THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS ARE!”

                      Yeah but Red Rocks, 52 years ago Lanny Friedlander founded Reason and its changed since then, so it doesn’t really matter!

                  2. No, we use marxist because BLM’s aims are socialist and its principles are collectivist- they believe people aren’t individuals but are just units divided into more-or-less superficial identity classes (black, white, cop, LGBT, jew, etc) in perpetual conflict as means to supremacy

                    1. Yes, their aims are collectivist. On that I completely agree.

                      Now that we have successfully labeled BLM, does that make the problems of racial injustice go away?

                    2. “problems of racial injustice”

                    3. So, you are against collectivism.

                      Then you share my concern that many commenters here are using guilt by association to paint rioters as being Marxists and directed by BLM, when it has not been established by any evidence that they have any ties to the BLM organization? Isn’t “that guy is carrying a sign that says, ‘Black Lives Matter!’, so he must be a Marxist, a classic case of treating people collectively?

                      Isn’t “that peaceful protestor was standing near rioters, so it’s his own fault he got shot in the head” collectivist thinking?

                    4. From my perspective it’s ” why were you still standing next to the rioters when the shooting started” thinking.

                      To draw an analogy, you’re asking why you’re getting a water hose in the face while you’re standing in the middle of a bonfire. The answer isn’t “because the firemen think you’re fire”.

                      .

                    5. You mean the problem that is either wildly exagerated or otherwise misrepresented. Yeah that makes much of the racial injustice they’re agitating against and actively creating go away as it’s a figment of their overactive imaginations and sense of grievance.

                      The fact that all of their solutions are collectivist marxist claptrap means yes they and all of their supporters should be ignored and shunned from society.

                      Please go somewhere else to white knight for marxists.

                    6. To be honest, I dont care whether it is “collectivist thinking” or not.

                    7. See, now the truth emerges.

                      The people throwing around the “BLM IS MARXIST” crap are people who think that problems of racial injustice, at least when it comes to minorities, are minimal at worst, but they cannot make a persuasive argument to that effect, so they engage in this stupid name-calling exercise in order to win by other means. They’ve lost the intellectual argument but they think they can still win the political argument. That’s what this whole shrieking about MARXISM is really about.

                    8. No it’s about the founder that said she and they were Marxist.

                      Duh.

                    9. Fine. The BLM founders are Marxists. Happy? That solves all the problems of racial injustice, now, doesn’t it? That means everyone who sets foot at a BLM rally is a Marxist working to foment revolution of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie! Right? Right?

                    10. Define “racial injustice” Jeff, and let’s see if you can avoid insulting the actual civil rights movement of 50-60 years ago by equating them

                    11. Considering he compared me to J Edgar Hoover, and BLM to MLK Jr, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

                    12. “To be honest, I dont care whether it is “collectivist thinking” or not”

                      OK, but collectivist thinking is antithetical to libertarianism.

                    13. How is acknowledging what the organization actually is “name calling” Jeff?

                  3. And you, and Sidd, and a bunch of others throw around Marxism as nothing more than a Scarlet Letter to tag people you don’t like instead of as any sort of accurate label

                    You’re lying again. I don’t call them Marxist. I even offered a half-assed explanation why IN THIS VERY THREAD.

                    1. He can’t fucking help himself.

                  4. Your comparison is shown to be garbage so all you can do is pout. Now what were you saying about “bankruptcy of argument?”

                    The only time you have a problem with generalizations is when it affects your fellow progressive travelers. You have no problem collectivizing the police. You have no problem collectivizing the right. So you really don’t have an issue with generalizing, only when it impacts your pals.

                    Typical.

              2. their statements in the past do not matter nearly as much as what the organization does in the present day.

                Cities burning, buildings destroyed, crime rates soaring, people doxxed and their livelihoods taken away for wrongthink, charges brought against individuals for defending their own property.

                Yes, by their fruits you shall certainly know them.

                1. The point I have been trying to make is that I have seen several commenters here make claims that people who have done those things are somehow tied to BLM, when no evidence has been given of those ties.

                  It might be harmless to be so casual about lumping people in with BLM. However, it is being done in service of a narrative advancing conservatism and the promotion of the idea that libertarians should vote for Republicans because Democrats are the more evil party that support all of these Marxist, anti-social activities that you enumerated.

                  1. The Democrats DO support them.

                  2. “NO DON’T TAKE BLM AND THEIR SUPPORTERS ACTIONS AND WORDS INTO ACCOUNT, ACCEPT THIS STRAWMAN I’VE CONSTRUCTED!”

                    1. This weird anti-collectivization fetish is very “Episiarch” in its construction.

                    2. That’s a blast from the past. I remember part of that fetish was hating “society.”

                    3. Cue the Obi-Wan, ‘That’s not a name I’ve heard in a long time’, meme.

                      And the rest of the fetish was drug taking, bitching about Seattle, and being hilariously insulting to whoever offended him.

                2. If anyone is, like, what narrative is the White Knight talking about. This is an over-the-top example. It looks like a parody, but it seems to be serious:

                  https://reason.com/2020/07/17/potential-key-to-the-2020-election-voters-who-cant-stand-both-trump-and-biden/#comment-8355213

                  1. Looks like something you posted under one of your other screen names to use as a talking point to argue against IIBH.

                    1. I would not have the chops to come up with a parody of that quality.

                    2. In fairness, the comment he links to gets a hell of a lot more right than white knight ever has

              3. Ihave never claimed that a few BLM founders weren’t marxist. What I have claimed is that their statements in the past do not matter nearly as much as what the organization does in the present day.

                The BLM founders didn’t just say that they were Marxists, they were saying that BLM was based on Marxist ideology and organized according to Marxist principles.

                And what BLM does today is textbook Marxist agitprop: the fact that it dresses Marxism in a mantle of compassion for the oppressed is what makes it so.

                The Scarlet Letter than it is to actually have a substantive debate over the issues with which you disagree.

                The BLM premise, that there is systemic racism and widespread police killing based on race, is simply wrong, as you can see from FBI statistics and multiple publications. What kind of “substantive debate” is there to be had beyond that?

                1. The BLM founders didn’t just say that they were Marxists, they were saying that BLM was based on Marxist ideology and organized according to Marxist principles.

                  Evidence for this claim?

                  1. She said it in the interview you won’t watch. You refuse to look at evidence that disagrees with your beliefs, then play dumb that that evidence exists.

                    It’s one of the many ways you’re a dishonest piece of shit.

                    1. It’s not so much that evidence disagrees with his beliefs as it exposes his beliefs and he doesn’t want to admit it.

                      Jeff, like most leftists, cannot honestly advocate for what he wants – he has to pretend to “neutrality/objectivity/disinterest” to lend credibility to and attempt to justify his position

                    2. I finally did watch the interview. She does not say that BLM is “based on Marxist ideology”. She says that she herself is a Marxist. So what is your evidence that BLM is “based on Marxist ideology”? Where in the BLM literature do they advocate for the proletariat rising up in revolution against the bourgeoisie?

                    3. And you know what? This is just stupid. Arguing whether or not BLM is Marxist just plays into the hands of the right-wing demagogue machine.

                      If BLM is Marxist or not, if BLM went away tomorrow or not, there would still be problems with racial injustice, you would still have out-of-control cops murdering innocent people, disproportionately people of color, you would still have police unions protecting horrible cops, you would still have institutional power structures that are completely outmoded in the modern age and do not serve us well but have their own institutional bureaucracy that move heaven and earth to prevent any change at all from occurring, you would still have a racial wealth gap, you would still have a racial education gap, you would still have all sorts of disproportionate treatment.

                      So fine, I don’t really care if you think BLM is Marxist or not. Let’s assume that they’re all Marxists! Why not! Does that make the problems magically disappear? No.

                      But it does mean that the right-wing demagogue machine gets to spin into overdrive and scare old white Boomers that the scary brown Marxists are coming to invade the ‘burbs so you’d better vote for Daddy Trump and Team Red to keep you safe from the commies.

                      That is the actual dynamic that is going on here. Do nothing about racial injustices or police brutality or systemic inequities, fire up the demagogue machine, and get Trump re-elected. That’s all.

                    4. there would still be problems with racial injustice, you would still have out-of-control cops murdering innocent people, disproportionately people of color,

                      Oh look at that, “collectivizing.” Funny how you can’t provide any data to support your claims of “racial injustice” just the typical screed taken straight from the Vox talking points.

                      And where’s your evidence that they are murdering innocent people disproportionately of color? The actual data shows that the rate of fatal incidents is in proportion to the rate of crime committed. So much for you caring about individual acts…

                  2. Fock you. It is pointless to respond to this disingenuous half-wit

                  3. Right in the interview.

                    Interviewer: “I’m concerned that BLM will be ineffective because it lacks an ideological framework”

                    BLM organizer: “Don’t worry, me and my partner are trained Marxist organisers.”

                    And as I was saying, the BLM program is typical Marxist agitprop. You got the same crap from Marxists 50 years ago.

                2. And what BLM does today is textbook Marxist agitprop: the fact that it dresses Marxism in a mantle of compassion for the oppressed is what makes it so.

                  Wait, so any protest which professes compassion for the oppressed is “Marxist agitprop”? Weren’t the anti-lockdown protestors professing compassion for oppressed business owners who were forcibly shut down?

                  1. Wait, so any protest which professes compassion for the oppressed is “Marxist agitprop”?

                    Thanks Jeff, for getting right to the point.

                    It is specifically the (false) claims of widespread systemic racism and widespread racially-motivated killings of blacks by police in the US that are a trope of Marxist agitprop, and have been for more than half a century.

                    Weren’t the anti-lockdown protestors professing compassion for oppressed business owners who were forcibly shut down?

                    Correct. And the specific concern of those protesters makes them conservatives or libertarians, i.e. the opposite of Marxists.

                  2. Show me how many people were assaulted, killed, or raped at a lockdown protest and you might have a point. Because over 20 peoplle have been killed in the name of “racial justice” so far and hundreds of millions of dollars (probably over a billion by now) in property damage.

                    Only in your perverted mind is that a reasonable comparison.

                3. The BLM premise, that there is systemic racism and widespread police killing based on race, is simply wrong, as you can see from FBI statistics and multiple publications.

                  Blacks are disproportionately more likely to be murdered by cops than whites.

                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/05/28/police-shootings-black-americans-disproportionately-affected-infographic/#5b5997e959f7

                  1. They’re also disproportionately more likely to be murdered by people that share their skin tone than by cops

                  2. All of nine unarmed black people were killed by cops last year.

                    Chicago’s black community gets that in, what, a weekend or two? How many black people have been killed in last month and a half by other black people? How many black people have been killed by the police in that same time frame?

                    chemtard doesn’t actually care about “systemic racism” or “black lives.” He does care about black deaths if they’re killed by a white person, preferably a cop, so he can limp out about it.

                    1. And both of you fascists have to immediately pull the whataboutism card. WELL WHAT ABOUT CHICAGO

                      Why can’t you all even stay on topic for one second?

                      Do you think murders in Chicago make murders by cops totally okay or something?

                      Murders by agents of the state are qualitatively different than murders by random criminals because agents of the state have the backing, whether official or not, of state power.

                      It is terrible if anyone is murdered, it is even worse if that murder occurs at the hands of agents of the state.

                    2. And by the way, the fact that both of you immediately deflected to WHATABOUTCHICAGO indicates that you don’t have any sort of intellectual response to questions of police brutality and racial injustice. It is as what I said above – you have no intellectual arguments, all you have are political weapons that you think you can use to win the political argument instead.

                    3. Chemjeff is right. We should hold agents of the state to an even higher regard. They are supposed to protect our liberties, and when they fail to do that, they must be held accountable. I agree that what is happening in Chicago is concerning, but using it as a deflection from the very real problem of police brutality and systemic racism is completely disingenuous.

                    4. chemtard admits that he doesn’t actually give a shit about actual black lives, just in selective cases.

                    5. Hey buckeye, you moron, if you hold one group to a higher standard than another, you are literally exercising a double standard

                    6. Hey Red Rocks, if something called qualified immunity didn’t exist, then that might make a little more sense, but the fact is that police are able to get away with so much more than ordinary people are. Take the Breonna Taylor incident for example. If some normal person had murdered her the same way that those police officers did, then you can best bet that they would be serving a hell of a lot of time in prison.

                    7. To buckeye…what does qualified immunity have to do with prison sentences? Qualified immunity is a civil court matter, not a criminal court matter. Perhaps you should be bitching toward the DA’s office.

                    8. State agents should be held to a higher standard when it comes to killing people, but for a group that purports to be about “black lives” to focus on the small number of lives lost to police action to the exclusion of all other causes and conditions is literally irrational.
                      If “black livez” really mattered to BLM, they wouldn’t be funneling all the donations they’ve received to Act Blue or prioritizing a Biden defeat of Trump before all else. They also might try pushing an optimistic message and stimulating individual ambition rather than stoking resentment and calling everyone racist or uncle Tom.
                      BLM is transparently a political actor who seeks, because it profits from, hate, division, and psychosis.

                    9. “Lance Manion
                      July.18.2020 at 7:07 pm
                      To buckeye…what does qualified immunity have to do with prison sentences? Qualified immunity is a civil court matter, not a criminal court matter. Perhaps you should be bitching toward the DA’s office.”

                      DAs offices filled and run by “ironically” members of the political party BLM is fundraising for

                    10. Why can’t you all even stay on topic for one second?

                      Why can’t you, Chemjeff? Why do you keep deflecting and using false and misleading language?

                      Murders by agents of the state are qualitatively different than murders by random criminals because agents of the state have the backing, whether official or not, of state power.

                      Correct. Killings by agents of the state are rare to begin with; murders by agents of the state are exceptionally rare, and when they occur, are harshly punished.

                    11. “Hey buckeye, you moron, if you hold one group to a higher standard than another, you are literally exercising a double standard”

                      Wow, you actually called another person a moron while in the middle of making that statement. As buckeyeguy99 eloquently explains, police are government employees. As their employers, we can hold them to extra high standards.

                    12. That’s where you’re wrong Knight. We aren’t their employers, the politicians are.

                    13. OK, then the politicians, as their employers, can impose extra high standards of behavior on police as part of their taking the job.

                    14. White Knight hilariously admits I’m right that buckeye was promoting a double standard.

                  3. Blacks are disproportionately [relative to the population] more likely to be murdered by cops than whites.

                    Correct. But the correct denominator for determining racial bias in law enforcement isn’t population size, it’s encounters with police.

                    If there is a racial bias in policing at all, it goes the other way: blacks are killed disproportionately less in encounters with police.

                  4. Blacks are proportionately more likely to be killed (your use of the inflammatory “murder” shows that you’re not interested in the facts) due to their much higher rate of crime commission.

                    Let’s examine the Princeton critique of the PNAS paper directly. The PNAS researchers had constructed a database of 917 officer-involved fatal shootings from 2015. Fifty-five percent of the victims were white, 27 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic. (Since 2015, the proportion of people killed by the police who are black has dropped; in 2018, it was 23 percent, according to the Washington Post’s database on fatal police shootings.) The PNAS analysis focused on the characteristics of each individual fatal police shooting to test statistically whether officer or civilian race predicted fatal police shootings. As the authors put it in their response paper, they calculated the “probability that a civilian is Black, Hispanic, or White given that a person has been fatally shot.” They found that officer or civilian race does not predict fatal police shootings; posing a threat to officers or civilians does.

                    But keep maintaining the narrative, pigeon.

              4. Chipper is right, the would Marxism is thrown around like a scary word as if everyone who shows up to protest police brutality is the same as a person who wants the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

                Chip is wrong. You are wrong.

                BLM are useful idiots. Antifa are useful idiots.

                NO ONE would be out protesting ANY of this if there wasn’t some marxist pulling strings.

                Because the numbers just aren’t actually there.

                There were 2 questionable killings of unarmed black people in 2019 that are still under investigation. TWO

                Out of over 300 MILLION police/public interactions.

                That is a record that is so close to absolute perfection that NO ONE should be having any issue whatsoever with the police.

                But the real numbers are hidden behind walls of statistics that have nothing to do with the issue.

                And those walls are the product of some variety of marxist.

          2. The social justice movement is a neo Marxist movement. They stopped using the term “Marxist” a few decades ago because it had negative connotations. But that doesn’t change what it actually is.

          3. “The word “Marxist” has become a meaningless bugaboo word, thrown at your enemies like feces.”

            I can think of other examples, like

            racist
            white supremacy
            fascist
            Nazi

            All these are used as throw-away epithets so often, they mean almost nothing.

      4. Did these kids skip American History? I’m from Virginia and I think I have the expertise to talk these kids down from the ledge.

        Not really, I was joking but I know how this will end. You lose, and you might as well jump, because the Mayor will be arrested and most likely the rabble involved. charged with Treason. Anybody want to wager on the charges? Fun and games are over, that will not be permitted.

        People seem to think they can act with abandon, and that Trump’s not real. Trump’s the President and he’s not dumb (he maybe an axxhole, that’s different story) which is more than I can say for the “insurgents”, because that’s what they became.

        And that’s a battle they’e going to lose, they can’t win. Ask yourselves, is that rational? Who gets into a fight they know they will lose? This is like resisting arrest; resistance at that point is futile.

    2. Hey Nick, why would you publish such a one sided screed. No mention of the businesses or citizens that have been affected by Antifa. Maybe some some real journalism where you research the link between local politicians and the Antifa? Everyone keeps telling us Antifa does not exist but there they are in Portland for the last 50 days.

      1. The thing about it that blows my mind is the unadulterated parroting of rather superficial propaganda by political leaders. Footage of stuff that, a generation ago, would’ve been political plutonium so radioactive that only Hollywood nutjobs would touch it has become their Twitter advocacy topic du jour.

        It’s not like they’re coming out with the traditional, “If these depictions are correct and actions as presented…” hedging. They’re embracing the narrative with both arms and a fair amount of pelvic thrusting.

    3. They’re all a bunch of sluts!

  2. “It’s painfully clear this administration is focused purely on escalating violence without answering my repeated requests for why this expeditionary force is in Portland and under what constitutional authority,” Wyden said in a press release. “Simply put, the Office of Inspector General must investigate Trump’s assault on Americans’ constitutional rights now.”

    You know why, Wyden, you Antifag piece of shit.

    1. I don’t have an answer to this one as well

    2. Of course he knows. To start with, his buddies have repeatedly attacked federal facilities in the area. But rioting that involves interstate commerce (such as rioters bussing down from Seattle, or through use of the telephone network or Internet) is a federal crime. Moreover, since there is a conspiracy and federal laws were violated, RICO is available. And, yes, grabbing people off the streets to either interrogate or arrest them, just as was apparently done here, is apparently common practice in organized crime investigations. And make no mistake – this is being treated as organized crime, because that is what it is.

      1. “his buddies” — this is the fast and loose use of guilt by association I’ve been speaking out against — in this case, there hasn’t even been any association shown

        “ rioting that involves interstate commerce (such as rioters bussing down from Seattle, or through use of the telephone network or Internet) is a federal crime” — can you to provide some kind of citation on that?

        1. He is freely associating with the rioters. Even you can’t be this obtuse.

        2. Guilt for association, as that association provides violent rioters opportunity they would not have if not for the “peaceful protesters ”

          You don’t get to claim ignorance when the results of your action are proven, known, and consistent

  3. Good. Someone needs to hold them accountable.
    I’m sorry, but camo-wearing agents with no name tags picking up random people off the street and placing them into unmarked cars is creepy authoritarian shit. That’s gotta stop.

    What are Trump and Wolf trying to prove here by escalating matters like this? They want to protect the federal courthouse? Fine, so post guards at the federal courthouse. You don’t need this black ops shit to do that.

    1. What are Trump and Wolf trying to prove here by escalating matters like this? They want to protect the federal courthouse? Fine, so post guards at the federal courthouse.

      That’s what they did, you quisling piece of shit. And then you cried like a bitch when the rioters had to deal with the consequences of their actions.

      “Escalating matters”? What’s going on isn’t even close to escalation. Try reading about the LA riots if you want to see “escalation,” you useless vermin.

      1. How did your comment address anything said in chemjeff’s comment?

        If it is true that Federal agents are patrolling areas of Portland not in the vicinity of Federal properties, then what is the justification for them being there?

        1. With all the rioting going on, and the police being outnumbered, not blindly destroying property should be SOP.

          No, they asked for this, and like unruly children, they get to suffer the consequences. Next time, don’t have anarchists take over the cities and destroy property.

        2. Doesn’t your pathetic ass have some handles to steal? Or did you realize that trying to get a bunch of libertarians to behave how you want through coercion was a bad idea?

          1. So you have no argument. Just insults.

            1. “If it is true”

              An argument against this? No, I don’t. Because I don’t need one. My response was appropriate just the same.

              1. As I have said several times before, I realize that current standards of news reporting are awful, and it is rare that a story is reported accurately in the first few days that it is breaking. So, I don’t want to make a fool of myself by saying some story like this Portland unidentified agent story is true without waiting for more facts to come out.

                As of last night there was no acknowledgment from any Federal agency that the arrest/abduction/or whatever it is in the viral video was real. Several commenters here advanced the apologetic argument that maybe it was all faked by antifa. This morning, Customs and Border Protection made a statement that the video is real, the agents are theirs. They claim that they picked the person off the streets of Portland, outside of the Federal property, because he was suspect of damaging Federal property. They claim they wanted to question him.

                So, it isn’t a fake video.

                Nothing was said about warrants, as Ken keeps going back to. There are not enough details of the suspect’s side of the story, his claims of how he was treated, not told why he was being picked up or where he was being taken.

                Reason has written about, and many civil libertarians have expressed concern before, about police officers during these riots removing identifying information from their uniforms. I think it is a major problem. I am also deeply concerned if Federal officers are going around grabbing people in the night with no due process.

                1. “So, it isn’t a fake video”

                  I don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion at all Jeff.

                  1. Hi, Tulpa!

                2. Can you imagine what these guys would be saying if this happened when Obama was president? They can’t either.

                  1. Silly, Francophile, we know what happened under Obama–he gave them “space to destroy.”

                  2. There it is. Just can’t help yourself.

                    1. You know it’s true. If Obama had DHS driving around in unmarked cars, wearing non-identifiable uniforms, arresting people, you’d be the first to start crying.

                    2. It’s fun to make shit up, isn’t it?

                    3. You know the answer to that question.

                    4. Last I checked, people protesting against Obama didn’t go around burning cities and destroying property for a month and a half.

                    5. It’s fun to make shit up, isn’t it?

                    6. Fuck off troll.

                    7. It’s fun to make shit up, isn’t it?

                      Speaking from experience?

                  3. I too remember all the tea party protests getting overrun by outside agitators and setting cities ablaze.

        3. If it is true that Federal agents are patrolling areas of Portland not in the vicinity of Federal properties, then what is the justification for them being there?

          Federal agents frequently arrest people far away from where they committed crimes; why is this a problem all of a sudden?

          1. Suddenly the Unabomber has reason to protest his incarceration because he didn’t actually set the bombs off himself, he was miles away from the location when they did explode, and he was arrested years after the fact, based on a manifesto that wasn’t even submitted under his name, out in the middle of nowhere.

            This is the logic of “radical individualism” in action.

            1. Who else but a radical individualist would so consistently side with totalitarians?

        4. If they have identified Individual criminals, they are free to pick them up wherever they want

    2. sadly nobody is holding wheeler and to account for ceding swaths of the city to violent rioters and violating the civil rights of every non-marxist in the city. I get you’re an apologist for antifa and the rest of the SJW destructive playbook, but you’re delusional if you think this is the escalation. Your fellow travelers are the ones who escalated this to violent confrontations with their month long rampage.

      1. Where did chemjeff utter one word in favor of antifa, Marxism, or social justice?

        1. He didn’t. It’s the usual TDS on display. However, everyone involved is acting like spoiled brats, so it’s hard to have much sympathy for anyone involved.

          Portland city government ceded the streets to their political allies, regardless of how much damage they did, CHOP/CHAZ being a prime example — four murders in a week or two, wasn’t it? Entire police precinct abandoned. And then they whine like babies when Trump sends in federal police to protect federal assets when the city is self-evidently not only incapable of it, but doesn’t even pretend to want to preserve the peace.

          Yes, there is a difference between rioters and protesters, yes the legit peaceful protesters are providing cover for the rioters and looters and vandals, but cover as a side effect is not the same as aiding and abetting, or we’d all be looters for paying taxes and voting.

          And the police, prosecutors, judges, and politicians from all sides played a huge part by giving police free rein to beat people up, kill them, shoot their dogs, steal their homes, vehicles, cash, and other property, burn babies in cribs, and generally act like thugs. The resultant riots are long overdue, just as the Boston Tea Party was long overdue, just as tar and feathers were long overdue for Stamp Act collectors.

          You clowns whining about looters and vandals reacting to 50+ years of police thugs seem to have forgotten what colonists were doing 250 years ago. You clowns complaining about federal police doing what city police won’t do seem to have forgotten what police ought to be doing while complaining about what they shouldn’t have been doing for 50 years.

          1. Portland city government ceded the streets to their political allies, regardless of how much damage they did, CHOP/CHAZ

            wrong city

            Portland’s chaz was a year or so ago

            1. Yes, you are right. Conflated two cities. The general thesis stands.

          2. Jeff has argued collectivist actions often.

            And when you constantly defend a group from criticism it is going to be taken as support.

            Such as WK being in full support of the sophistry of sqrsly and Jeff.

            Isnt that right sarcasmic?

      2. They took over a park for a bit and did not violate anyones rights.

        1. They didn’t protect rights either. Four murders, wasn’t it?

          1. Careful. Do you want law enforcement to prevent murders or do you want them to prosecute people who commit murders?

        2. You have a very narrow view on what people’s rights are, slaver.

        3. Sure if you ignore the assaults and property destruction, no harm (except the actual harm), no foul (except the felonies).

        4. Are you kidding? They violated the property rights of the people living in the area they took over.

        5. Except free speech. Access to their property. Not being murdered. You know, the small ones.

        6. 50 days of riots, arson, assaults,rapes, vandalism…

          Not violating anyone’s rights.

          LOL

          1. Afaik, after the initial nationwide week of rioting looting etc, the protestors in Portland have, so far, knocked over two statues and lit one on fire. How is this violating someone’s rights? Do statues have rights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Portland,_Oregon

            1. the protestors in Portland have, so far, knocked over two statues and lit one on fire.

              LMAO you people are so obvious.

              1. I have a hard time believing a bunch of white, hipster soy boys (and their accompanying Karens) can actually do any real damage. I envision a bunch of slap fights and shooting bottle rockets at cops. I could be wrong. I hope the feds that are pulling them into vans are at least giving them the Chinese Water Torture before releasing them.

    3. Grow up sweet pea. You would still whine like a bitch if they wore giant name tags and rode in van with a fed billboard on the top.

    4. Hey fattie… did you watch the videos or did you ignore it like the BLM founder videos?

      They had fucking badges on dummy. That is what you’re complaining about.

    5. The Democrats probably shouldn’t have reauthorized the fucking Patriot Act and then sat around with their thumbs up their asses while the rioters did their thing.

    6. That is how organized crime is investigated and prosecuted, and that is what is going on here – organized crime that violates a number of federal criminal statutes, including probably RICO.

    7. The CBP (customs/border control) guy verified that their agents were using unmarked vans.

  4. Like MSM reports of the Portland situation, this article omits the most important facts.

    For more than a year, Portland has had a no-go neighborhood, controlled by Antifa terrorists, largely because Portland’s mayor and police commissioner are either Antifa members or in bed with them, and have ordered the police to let them do what they want, including beat up and rob any “normies” who try to visit that neighborhood.

    It is outrageous — even treasonous — that this was allowed to go on for one day, and it’s more outrageous that neither Oregon’s governor nor Trump declared it an insurrection and sent in the National Guard to impose order. I’m glad Trump has done so now, and he must not back down.

    Obviously, just like the rest of the riots, the current ones in Portland were preplanned and have nothing to do with Mr. Floyd.

    Reason, please get over your blind spot about BLM/Antifa terrorists if you expect to be taken seriously.

    1. “blind spot”

      LOL

    2. They took over a park for a little and have been cleared out. Not exactly “no-go neighborhood, controlled by Antifa terrorists”.

      1. …Honestly, no disrespect, that’s one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read.

        1. They took over, but didn’t control. It used to be a joke that 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

      2. Four murders on their watch; those people won’t be going anywhere soon. Where’s the accountability for that?

        1. You dont want accountability sqrsly. Just above you were pretending to be ignorant of 50 days or riots in Portland.

    3. The people of Portland can elect a new mayor on November 3rd. Meanwhile, none of the elected officials in Oregon have asked the Federal government for help.

      1. Irrelevant. If they want to graffiti and try to burn down federal property, they’re going to get tagged by glowies. Maybe if these solipsistic idiots didn’t record everything they did on their phones, they wouldn’t get tracked.

        1. What justifies any of those Federal agents patrolling Portland streets outside of Federal properties?

          1. You mean besides federal jurisdiction to arrest people who damage federal properties and organize mobs to commit that damage?

          2. White Knight unintentionally advocates for how Alabama ran race relations in the 50’s and 60’s.

            I mean, THEIR officials didn’t request interference from the Feds, either.

            And they were also ALL Democrats.

            Weird.

            1. White Knight appears to be a complete idiot who thinks criminals can only be arrested at the scene of the crime, and Federal Agents can only stand on Federal owned property, like Floor is Lava

              1. The claim is that nobody was arrested or questioned. Just hauled off the street and intimidated.

              2. I should be more precise. One side claims that people were pulled off the street just to be intimidated. CBP claim they did arrest one person.

                As I’ve said several times now, we do not have all the facts yet.

                1. We didn’t have all the facts on Ferguson MO for a month or two, so I am not going to immediately side with the professional liars and against Occam’s Razor

          3. My favorite libertarian principle is tyranny of the majority which Sarcasmic here fully endorses.

            1. There are principles in tension with each other here: Federal level reserve in overruling local government and jurisdictions, individual rights (not to be subject to violence and property damage), individual rights (to due process), being able to identify police officers so that they cannot hide behind anonymity, a police officer’s right to protect self and family from doxxing.

              I acknowledge all of the above, but it would never come out here because there are no real conversations here anymore about anything.

              But, you know, if you can oversimplify to slam me personally, that’s what’s important.

          4. What justifies them coming into my local bar for arresting me for robbing that bank yesterday? That bank is in an entirely different neighborhood

      2. none of the elected officials in Oregon have asked the Federal government for help.

        Big if true.

        1. You would have been a big hit with theWhite Citizens Council

        2. No. Irrelevant. The federal property attacked belongs to the country, and not the neighborhood. And the criminal conspiracy they are engaging in is National in scope.

          1. “Big if true” is internet sarcasm.

      3. People who live there are having their rights violated. The local government is unwilling to protect their rights. The federal government shouldn’t wait for the local government that has shown no interest in protecting people’s rights to ask for help protecting people’s rights.

        I’m seriously starting to wish an angry mob would show up to yours and Jeffy’s houses in the middle of the night and start throwing bricks through your windows. All while I’m across the street peacefully protesting, siting in a lawn chair, drinking a beer, and laughing my ass off. Except I have nothing against your mom so I’m not really.

        1. I don’t think the feds should be doing anything without the locals permission but all the libshits complaining about it applaud every single consent decree. So fuck them.

          1. So if a local government becomes corrupt and allows people’s rights to be violated, those people are just fucked?

            I’m not a fan of the feds getting involved in general, but when a local government allows a group of people to violate other people’s rights with impunity, and the State government doesn’t do anything either, then the feds should intervene on behalf of the people who’s rights are being violated.

            1. I used to just support localism aesthetically mostly without much conscious thought. But now I think the Washington blob getting worked up about some perceived violation of rights is an existential threat for the planet. For example, worldwide George Floyd protests. China and Russia are the only countries with strong cultural defenses against this kind of worldwide group think.

              to violate other people’s rights with impunity

              You need to read Christopher Caldwell’s newest book, The Age of Entitlement. The people in Washington don’t have the same concept of rights as you.

              1. I’m aware they don’t. But in the hear and now, their are actual, individual people that live and work in these places whose rights are being violated daily, often violently.

                To me, that is much more important than someone else’s right to protest in the middle of the night standing side by side with people committing violence.

                This whole debate actually amazes me, which should be impossible for as long as I’ve been commenting here. On one side you have those of us watching people’s homes and livelihoods, and even their lives in some cases, being destroyed. On the other you have people acting like this is some philosophy 100 class discussion about what constitutes a “group”, and how to differentiate between peaceful protests that go on throughout the night and those standing right next to them being violent.

                Quite frankly it disgusts me that people that claim to value individual rights and the NAP don’t see that they’re the useful idiots here as they run cover for this violence.

                1. You’ve told me a couple of times you are a libertarian, but you seem to be blowing off the concept of individualism because it’s “philosophy 100”. Treating people as individuals rather than lumping them into groups you’ve made up, is foundational to libertarianism.

                  1. They’re lumping themselves into groups dumbass. People have a right to assemble, but when they do, they are in a group.

                    assemble[ uh-sem-buhl ]

                    verb (used with object), as·sem·bled, as·sem·bling.
                    to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.

                    Groups are comprised of individuals.

                    1. No. If I attend some protest rally, and I’m being completely peaceful, and some jerk in the crowd starts breaking windows of some storefront, I am not a rioter. I am not part of the group of rioters.

                    2. If you stick around and don’t take action to stop the rioter(s), then yes – you are now a rioter

                      I love how you bleat “individualism” while completely rejecting the concept of personal responsibility

                    3. I love how you bleat “individualism” while completely rejecting the concept of personal responsibility

                      chemtard made the same argument about the Oberlin case, while being deliberately obtuse about the fact that the protests against the bakery were being deliberately encouraged by university staff and the protesters were allowed to use university resources to create the flyers for their protests. Not to mention the fact that Oberlin tried to blackmail the bakery by demanding that any Oberlin student caught stealing from the store, which sparked the whole protest to begin with, needed to be dealt with by the university, not the police.

                    4. Let’s take the example of the young man who was shot in the face in Portland. He was standing nowhere near anyone else. There was no way he was shot accidentally while aiming for someone else.

                      Yet, I’ve seen the argument advanced here in the comments that he got what he deserved because he was in the middle of a crowd of unruly protestors.

                    5. Let’s take the example of the rioters who broke the windows of the restaurant in Texas. There was no evidence established that the people breaking the windows were organized by BLM. They didn’t classify themselves as BLM. Commenters here, and in other places like Twitter, classified them.

                      That’s what I’m talking about. It’s collectivist thinking when YOU lump people into buckets and stop thinking of them as individuals.

                    6. RRWP, I’ll have to give you whatever point you’re trying to make about Oberlin because I’m not familiar with it at all, and chemjeff, not me, made whatever argument he made.

                    7. “IF THEY DIDN’T SHOW THEIR BLM MEMBERSHIP CARDS IT WASN’T A BLM PROTEST!”

                    8. “IF I ATTEND A RIOT IT’S NOT FAIR TO BE LUMPED IN WITH RIOTERS!”

                    9. “How dare you collectivize collectivists!”

                2. To be clear, on this particular matter I support the feds, neighborhood watch, militias, the Russians from Red Dawn, or whoever else going in and restoring order. I just think the broader trend of transferring power and responsibility from the communities to faceless bureaucrats 4 time zones away is bad.

                  On the other you have people acting like this is some philosophy 100 class discussion about what constitutes a “group”, and how to differentiate between peaceful protests that go on throughout the night and those standing right next to them being violent.

                  I have absolute zero respect for these people. They’re obviously just running cover for antifa. Not one is doing it in good faith.

                  1. Well then, we seem to agree completely.

                  2. I’m not running cover for antifa. I despise antifa, thank you very much (nobody has bother asking me).

                    I am concerned about individual civil rights.

                    1. (nobody has bother asking me).

                      FFS you’re a joke.

                    2. Ypu6 have yet to even show a single iota of care regarding civil riots as compared to 50 days of rioting.

                      You fucking lie about your caring.

                    3. Are you trying to do some kind of pun thing with “civil rights” and “civil riots”?

                3. Quite frankly it disgusts me that people that claim to value individual rights and the NAP don’t see that they’re the useful idiots here as they run cover for this violence.

                  To coin a phrase, ALL RIGHTS MATTER.

                  The rights of property owners who have their property destroyed as a result of riots, they matter.

                  The rights of peaceful protestors who don’t do anything violent, they matter too.

                  They both matter. There is no need to try to take sides as to whose rights matter more. There is no hierarchy here. They both matter.

                  1. How is your position any different than the useful idiots who tacitly supported the SS and the Nazi party. That wss fine as long as they didn’t purposefully kill a Jew? That is literally your argument taken to an extreme.

                    1. We are literally discussing here our concern about reports that anonymous government agents are going around kidnapping people in the middle of the night, and you try to pull a Godwin on us?

                    2. You do not debate in good faith. You completely twisted what he wrote in tortuous ways to come up with something nowhere near what he said.

                    3. “reports”

                  2. Oh, man. I thought I coined that phrase, a day or two ago. But, it’s probably a phrase that occurred to others before either of us.

                4. And that you and so many others seem to want to construct a hierarchy of rights, that the rights of people who are victims of property damage due to riots, matter MORE than the rights of protestors who did nothing wrong – that is what, at least in my mind, calls into question their libertarian bona fides. If we’re gonna respect individual liberty, it is everyone’s individual liberty that we’ve got to respect.

                  Think of the flipside of the argument – imagine the hypothetical (actual) Marxist who tries to make the claim that the rights of property owners don’t matter because “they’re part of the capitalist system which is oppressing us” or “they’re just useful idiots for big corporations that are destroying the planet”. Those arguments are just as corrosive and just as wrong, in that they collectivize innocent people together as if they were all guilty, as those who in these comments try to lump all protestors together, both the violent ones and the nonviolent ones, into one monolithic guilty group that should be destroyed for some supposed ‘greater good’.

                  1. They’ve had riots for over 7 weeks now.

                    Nobody protesting now is a protestor. They are ALL rioters at this point.

                    1. So the guy who showed up yesterday to the protests for the first time and did nothing violent is exactly the same as the guy who vandalized a courthouse. Got it.

                      That is you collectivizing them and refusing to acknowledge that they are separate individuals not one big mob.

                      But that would require you to recognize them as human beings in the first place, which I know is beyond your abilities.

                    2. The guy who showed up to the riot after 7 weeks of daily rioting…

                      You should realize that the violence is only possible because the “peaceful protesters” associate with the people directly committing violence

                    3. Jeff doesnt believe in reason or actual individual responsibility.

                    4. The kid who got shot in the head was peacefully protesting.

                    5. “Jeff doesnt believe in reason or actual individual responsibility.”

                      You say that, but then your reasoning is all statements about what groups of people have done.

                    6. Every individual protesting is responsible for knowingly creating the conditions required to riot.

                      You seem exceedingly desperate to absolve everyone of personal responsibility.
                      Such progress

                    7. “ the conditions required to riot”

                      A whole new line of reasoning that blows off individualism, and personal culpability. “I didn’t choose to riot, it’s just that all those peaceful protestors around me created the conditions that made me do it.”

                    8. “IT’S NOT FAIR WHEN I ATTEND A RIOT AND SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES FOR IT!”

                  2. So you’re saying the actual arguments and goals of BLM are corrosive.

                    Sorry “peaceful protesters” who wilfully lend support and cover to violent actors are collectivizing themselves into the category of not-peaceful protesters. You want to make the argument about separating violent from non-violent protesters individually you get that once, as it becomes a given that it’s actually a violent protest/riot you lose that benefit of the doubt. There have been 7 weeks of riots at this point in Portland, if you don’t know what’s up and what you’re getting into that’s on you. Now go spout your support for violent leftists somewhere.

                    1. Sorry “peaceful protesters” who wilfully lend support and cover to violent actors are collectivizing themselves into the category of not-peaceful protesters.

                      What does “willfully lend support and cover” mean? Just standing there? See there you go. You don’t like them so you don’t really give a shit about their individual circumstances.

                      Also, you realize every single one of your arguments in favor of treating every protestor as a part of a “violent mob” works equally well for every right-wing protest, right? And do not tell me that they never get violent, because they sometimes do.

                    2. Ok, list an example of “right wing” protester violence.
                      Then list an example of “right wing” protests that were repeatedly and consistently violent.

                      The idiots at BLM “protests” are useful precisely because their association makes violent rioting possible.
                      What responsibility do you assign to the cops with Chauvin when he killed Floyd?

                    3. Lol. List a right wing riot fucktard.

                      You mean the tea party that cleaned up after themselves?

                      Have you ever once in your life thought you had any responsibility. Or do you just blame others always?

                    4. Also, you realize every single one of your arguments in favor of treating every protestor as a part of a “violent mob” works equally well for every right-wing protest, right? And do not tell me that they never get violent, because they sometimes do.

                      And yet you can’t provide a single example of it. Do Charlottesville. Please do Charlottesville. You know, the case where violent left wing rioters showed up and provoked a confrontation.

                      The lockdown protests were uniformly peaceful. The firearm protest in Virginia was uniformly peaceful.

                      Meanwhile 4 or was it 5 cops were assassinated at a BLM rally in Dallas 5 years ago. But, but, but guiltz by association!!! Not fair!!!!

                      And yet the same thing NEVER happens at your dreaded “right-wing” rallies. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

                  3. Your bald assertion that providing cover for criminals is nothing wrong is the central tenant of your argument. And it is wrong.

          2. “I don’t think the feds should be doing anything without the locals permission”

            Agrred

            1. Agreed, but that ship sailed with the Civil Rights Act and lies buried under a further heap of SCOTUS detritus.

              And the vast majority of those decrying current Federal action are not adverse to much if any of that massive Federal edifice.

              1. Indeed, they’re running with this bullshit narrative because they plan on doing it for real

        2. LAW & ORDER!

          chemjeff and I are asking important questions about civil rights? I thought you said you are a libertarian?

          1. No you’re not. And I am. You being thick skulled has no bearing on me being libertarian.

      4. none of the elected officials in Oregon have asked the Federal government for help.

        Yeah, and Gov. Faubus didn’t invite the 101st Airborne.

      5. Oh, so suddenly collectivizing is good again. Do you know that no single individual has asked for federal help? Why do you deny the rights of the individual? Why are you such a collectivist?

    4. For more than a year, Portland has had a no-go neighborhood, controlled by Antifa terrorists, … Portland’s mayor and police commissioner are either Antifa members or in bed with them … It is outrageous

      It is outrageous. But it’s a matter for Oregon, not for the federal government. The mayor and governor are still elected officials.

      it’s more outrageous that neither Oregon’s governor nor Trump declared it an insurrection and sent in the National Guard to impose order.

      I don’t think it is. If the people of Oregon or Portland want to give over their land and property to radical leftists, that’s really their problem.

      I agree that the federal government has the legitimate power to intervene, I just don’t think it’s politically wise or that federal tax payers should waste a dime on these people. Far better to let it be a negative example to the rest of the country.

      1. True…but what about the few who vote against these policies and are drowned out by their leftie idiot neighbors?

        This logic would have eviscerated the move to desegregate schools (that our woke bigots now want to reinstitute post haste)

        1. Oh, so you are offering compassion for an oppressed minority?

          I’ve been told that’s a sign of Marxist agitprop.

          How long have you been a Marxist, damikesc?

          1. chemjeff, you’ve also been told that eating paint chips is a poor idea.

            Yet you continue to do so.

            Why should anybody ever take you seriously?

            1. Go back to polishing your guns. Maybe your prayed-for boogaloo will come to pass after all.

              1. You’re spitting cookies everywhere.

              2. WTF is a boogaloo?

              3. It’s a code word for race war supposedly used among extremists who want to start one.

                  1. And to the point

          2. I’ve been told that’s a sign of Marxist agitprop.

            No, only the pretense of compassion for non-existent systemic oppression of blacks in the US is a long-standing trope of Marxist agitprop in the West.

            BLM doesn’t offer actual compassion for blacks or anybody else. Neither do Marxists.

        2. They can vote with their feet

  5. unmarked vehicles

    Libertarians for having fleets of unused fed vehicles in every city just in case.

    1. One report I saw claimed they are rental vehicles. I don’t know how the person reporting it knew that, but I also don’t know how anyone knows they are Federally-owned vehicles. Seems like no facts are in evidence here.

      1. “Seems like no facts are in evidence here.”

        And yet you’ve been trying all day to get everyone to condemn it. Oh, but I forgot, you were doing it to make a separate point about BLM.

        I’m starting to notice a pattern about how your morals work.

        1. Yet, with sketchy facts, John, say, will link to a video of some rioters at a restaurant in Texas, and say that it is proof that BLM directed the rioters to go out and break windows. But its just a video, with no details of what restaurant, when it occurred, whether it was part of a BLM-organized event.

          1. Cite? Sorry I wasn’t aware I was responsible for monitoring a discussion between you and John.

            1. Yet, you jump in and start arguing, in a debate where you don’t even know the context.

              1. He didn’t bring up John that I could tell. Where did R Mac bring up John’s argument?

        2. Also, John and others have put forth the argument that someone’s silence on some current event isn’t just silence. They have the magic insight to tell you what the silence means.

          1. What the fuck does this have to do with this discussion?

            Oh, I get it. You’re justifying your approach of using bad behavior to coerce me to behave how you want. Poorly. Like I said, I’m noticing a pattern of how your morals work.

            1. This is not a private conversation between you and me. It is a group discussion board. There are lots of debates going on where you may not understand the context, yet it doesn’t stop you from jumping in and arguing.

              1. John’s not here man.

              2. So you’re… collectivizing? I thought that was bad. Oh, maybe it’s only bad when you can’t identify individuals, say in a mob, but is really, really good when you can, say on a forum.

          2. Ummm, well…… “White silence is violence”.

            Seems to be a lot of reading into silence going on.

  6. They won’t stand up for free speech, but they’ll protect their antifa allies.

    1. All the people who’s rights were already being violated by Antifa probably have insurance though.

      1. So it’s alright to destroy insured property?

        The insurance company has rights as well, and deserves protection from violent mobs.

        1. I was being sarcastic.

          1. Someone on these boards actually made this argument when all this nonsense started.

  7. I want to know whether anyone has been actually been arrested without probable cause, whether anyone has has actually been held for questioning for more than 24 hours without being charged, whether there were arrest warrants for the people being taken in by Homeland Security, whether people are actually being denied their right to attorney, etc.

    “The ACLU of Oregon’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeks a temporary restraining order against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and U.S. Marshals deployed to Portland from assaulting press and legal observers.

    “This is a fight to save our democracy,” Kelly Simon, interim legal director with the ACLU of Oregon. “Under the direction of the Trump administration, federal agents are terrorizing the community, risking lives, and brutally attacking protesters demonstrating against police brutality. This is police escalation on top of police escalation. These federal agents must be stopped and removed from our city. We will continue to bring the full fire power of the ACLU to bear until this lawless policing ends.”

    Why don’t they just file a writ of habeas corpus and show us a case of someone actually being unlawfully detained or actually having their rights violated in some other way–rather than issuing hyperbolic press releases?

    Because the Oregon ACLU says something doesn’t make it a fact.

    1. If their lawsuit has merit it will make it to trial. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

      Meanwhile, if it’s true that Federal agents were driving around picking people up on the street outside Federal properties, then they were kidnapping.

      1. Not if they have warrants.

        1. Exactly.

          If the FBI and/or Homeland Security hasn’t been trying to infiltrate anti-fa at this point, they aren’t doing their jobs.

          Whether you want them to spy on anti-fa and whether they should spy on anti-fa and whether it’s constitutional for them to spy on anti-fa–that’s a separate question.

          But isn’t their job to do surveillance on domestic terrorists–whether we like it or not?

          It would be astounding to me if they didn’t have any warrants for some of these arrests people are talking about. If that jackass from the Southern District of New York has time to come after Reason commenters for making jokes about woodchippers, the average anti-fa chat room is probably an arrest warrant gold mine.

          And if there weren’t any valid arrest warrants, it’s likely that the ACLU would be filing writs of habeas corpus rather than issuing press releases and gunning for headlines by suing for injunctions to stop Homeland Security from beating up the press.

          1. If there’s a question about the constitutionality, and they are doing it, then they are NOT doing their jobs.

            1. Oh sure there is!

              Half the government exists to do things that are unconstitutional.

              Haven’t you heard of Wickard vs. Filburn?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

              The job of half the government is unconstitutional as far as I’m concerned. Their job is to violate the constitution–and it’s considered legal.

              Why pretend otherwise?

              Pretending that things are other than the way they are because you want them to be different is the hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

            2. What is unconstitutional about arresting criminal suspects with probable cause or a warrant?

          2. The plausible theory I’ve seen floated is that they’re picking up undercovers, since the video shows them going directly to one person who complies without trouble, isn’t searched for weapons, and is escorted to the van without any restraints on

            1. Nice Kafkatrap. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes.

              If they don’t resist arrest they are spies. Or if they resist and the charges get reduced, they must be spies.

              Alternately, the story I heard is it is the people who were missing that day who are the spies.

        2. OK, guess if the lawsuit makes it to court, we’ll find out if there were warrants.

          1. So stop whining, then.

            1. Impossible.
              Whining is the entirety of white knight’s existence

        3. Not if they have warrants.

          Or probable cause.

          The video I’ve seen officers picked up someone who threw an object at their unmarked car which throwing objects at moving vehicles, police or not, is a crime without explaining to the people who were with them why they arrested them. Additionally, sitting in the back of a squad car while officers Mirandize you, assess who should be charged and with what is nothing new. They’re under no obligation to explain to bystanders why someone’s under arrest and there’s a considerable case that they shouldn’t be compelled to.

      2. There’s no such thing as liberal activist judges that rule based on ideology instead of actual merits under law, is there. Especially on the west coast.

        1. What exactly are you saying then? Since there are biased liberal judges, let’s throw out the judicial system?

          1. No. You’re good at making shit up.

          2. As opposed to there are a few bad cops so let’s throw out the police force.

            But that’s different because reasons.

          3. That makes more sense than ” since one cop in MN sat on a non compliant suspect a minute too long, we should throw out all law enforcement”

      3. Can’t wait for the temporary restraining order trial.

      4. Just for the record, here’s what the ACLU says about the Patriot Act and investigating domestic terrorism:

        A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.

        . . . .

        The USA PATRIOT Act expanded governmental powers to investigate terrorism, and some of these powers are applicable to domestic terrorism.

        The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.

        —-ACLU

        https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

        The chances of these “protesters” being nabbed by Homeland Security because Homeland Security obtained an arrest warrant for them seems pretty high to me.

        Again, I oppose the Patriot Act, and I think it should be repealed no matter whether it’s being used against the Bundys or anti-fa. But why would agencies that depend on looking like they’re doing something important to justify their funding NOT bother to do surveillance on anti-fa?

        1. Funny, but all of the activists listed occasionally engage in vandalism, harassment & property destruction as a means of making their political point, so terrorism doesn’t seem too far off for each organization, though degrees vary.

          1. “A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”

            We (libertarians) have been arguing against the Patriot Act since it was first introduced for this very reason–because it targets domestic political advocacy groups as if they were targeting Americans with biological agents or a dirty nuclear bomb.

            Like I said, if we’re arguing about whether the Patriot Act is desirable, you get one response, and if we’re arguing about whether an arrest warrant for anti-fa is legal, you get another argument.

            We certainly shouldn’t argue against the Patriot Act because it targets people as terrorists for engaging in political acts that shouldn’t be considered terrorism and then claim that groups like anti-fa aren’t covered by the Patriot Act.

            Oh, and just because I think of anti-fa as 2020’s answer to the brownshirts doesn’t mean I’m suddenly in favor of the Patriot Act either. I’m against violating the rights of people I don’t like, too–even if they don’t deserve my sympathy–and the Patriot Act is incompatible with a free and just society. It’s wrong because it makes things legal that shouldn’t be legal.

            1. Just pointing out that the MO of the groups highlighted included resorting to violence against 3rd parties so the definition seems to fit. Being against the patriot act as a whole is one thing as there is a lot demanding abuse in it but the specific callouts from the ACLU in this case aren’t necessarily abuses of the act or even undesirable in a society of mutual respect.

              If Operation Rescue go about firebombing abortion clinics I’d say the terrorism charges begin to fit, same for ELF & Greenpeace in their activities. If they’re just a nuisance or disruptive, not destructive then the charge doesn’t fit. In this case destruction is the operating plan.

      5. “If their lawsuit has merit it will make it to trial. If it doesn’t, it won’t.”

        And their lawsuit makes the front page, above the fold, for days, while the dismissal of the charges ends up at the bottom of the last page of section D. – which is OK with the ACLU because it’s served it ornagemanbad purpose.

        1. So you’re saying we should just throw out the judicial system?

          – White Knight

          1. We already have.

      6. If their lawsuit has merit it will make it to trial. If it doesn’t, it won’t.

        The “merit” is in the eye of the judge it comes before, and that’s still often someone who agrees with progressive ideology.

        Give it another four years and a few hundred more appointments, and the judiciary will have changed substantially.

      7. Doesn’t the Patriot Act basically allow this?

      8. No. Not kidnapping. Least violent and safest way to interrogate people. The terrorists have shown themselves more than willing to attack LEOs when they try to arrest people, and try to overpower the LEOs and get their people freed. Plenty of videos of this. Driving marked units would get the feds mobbed, as well as would walking up to them in uniform and questioning them.

        This is nothing new with federal law enforcement.

      1. Video starts “In case you thought Trump being a fascist was hyperbole, military police are occupying Portland and literally snatching people off the street.”

        How fucking stupid are you?

        1. The channel is “The Rational National” lmao. Fucking 2008 Reddit is drooling on the rest of the internet.

        2. Did you watch the video clips he played? Or did you stop it 10 seconds in, because you got triggered he was criticizing Trump? Is your brain even capable of intaking information that challenges your worldview?

          1. <>

            no one’s gonna dig through a pile of shit for a kernel of corn on your say so

            1. Huh. Talk about “refusing to view evidence that contradicts your worldview”. I’m sure R Mac will be along shortly to criticize you.

              1. Why would anybody review evidence from someone who doesn’t know the difference between civilian and military police?

          2. That’s one way to answer my question.

          3. This from the idiot who thinks we’re all going to drown real soon now. There is no fact that you will allow to challenge your world view.

      2. The annoying Karen yelling “use your words” needs to be flogged with spaghetti.

        1. White progressive women are the worst people on Earth.

          Not even an exaggeration. There is literally not a problem that white progressive women won’t make infinitely worse.

        2. If they really weren’t police officers, then her entire argument about “You just violated that person’s rights.” is really “People doing things I don’t approve of is illegal.” Picking someone up off the street isn’t illegal, especially if the person getting picked up doesn’t say “No”.

          If they really were police officers, they can Mirandize you in the vehicle and are under no obligation to inform third parties on the scene.

      3. It’s bizarre how everybody in the video seems to know exactly who the “kidnappers” were going to “kidnap” and aren’t scanning the streets worried that a van might be pulling up for them. It’s almost like there’s a lot of context or staging that’s missing from the video.

    2. the full fire power of the ACLU

      A threat of armed violence by the ACLU, that the ACLU should be protesting against. The ACLU is a terrorist organization.

    3. These are the ONLY questions that matter

  8. To those who support unidentified federal agents picking people off the streets: What political philosophy do you have that is ok with this? It is not libertarianism, nor any of the branches of liberal or progressive. Nor are constitutional conservatives nor small government conservatives ok with this.

    1. Help me understand this “unidentified” talking point. Are they supposed to announce their full names and addresses on a bullhorn before arresting people?

      1. They are supposed to have the name of the agency they work for displayed.

        1. Your complaint is that their uniforms are out of regulation? That’s it?

          1. No, part of the issue is that no one knows what agency they work for. That significantly hinders accountability.

            1. The ACLU named the DHS and US Marshalls.

              1. That is because they know now, but it took a while for that info to come out. The agency responsible should have been known immediately.

                1. The agency responsible should have been known immediately.

                  You’re just speculating that it wasn’t.

                  1. No, I am not, that was the whole point of the problem. Another post on this same blog even spent all day wondering.

                    1. Just because some shitbag journo’s Twitter mutuals didn’t know doesn’t mean the relevant parties didn’t know.

            2. Plain clothes police are a thing. They can make arrests and detain suspects and witnesses for questioning.

              1. It is not legal to detain a witness for questioning unless the police have individualized reasonable suspicion that the witness also committed a crime.

                1. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore whether police can legally remove a witness from an area for safety reasons (I have asked elsewherewhether that is valid, but no answers so far). So, do you have evidence that the feds lacked reasonable suspicion?

                  1. My question is about political philosophy and is not dependent on the specific facts in Portland. I am bummed no one will answer.

                    1. I believe Ken Schultz did address the broader question. I don’t want to put words in Ken’s mouth, but in a nutshell, I read his response as: if people are arrested and there are valid arrest warrants, then the identification on the uniforms or the lack of uniforms isn’t inherently wrong. I hope I haven’t mischaracterized his replies.

                2. It is not legal to detain a witness for questioning unless the police have individualized reasonable suspicion that the witness also committed a crime.

                  You’ve fallen for the editing. There’s a video out there of the van in question (it has an identifiable license plate) being hit by an object thrown from the curb. Throwing objects at moving vehicles in a public roadway is a crime and aven citizens are allowed to detain other citizens and (e.g.) collect insurance information in such a situation.

                  If the feds watched him throw the object, circled around, picked him up, and Mirandized him in the car, *and* charged him at lockup. No one’s rights were violated.

                3. No one in the video is at all confused about who they were there to detain and they didn’t detain the closest person or, presumably, the easiest target, or everyone. It’s clear from the video that there’s lots of missing context and there are other videos out there of the exact same van that provide a reasonable context.

            3. I bet they were just peaceful government agents.

      2. Ideally also a badge number and name.

    2. Please see my post above with the link from the ACLU.

      Are you asking about whether this is desirable or are you asking about whether this is legal?

      Arresting people because you obtained an arrest warrant isn’t necessarily an offense against the whole concept of justice. If they don’t have arrest warrants for these people, then why isn’t the ACLU talking about that?

      1. I want to know what philosophy supports it. Who is ok with this?

        1. Okay with using arrest warrants to arrest people?

          You seem to be taking the political activists’ word for this as gospel, and yet there are gaping holes in their narrative.

          I’m against arresting people without probable cause, but the ACLU doesn’t even seem to be alleging that’s happening. They’re just against arresting people? What if they have an arrest warrant? What if they’re identified Molotov cocktail throwing arsonists they’ve identified through surveillance and video footage, and they’re systematically arresting them? Are you against arresting arsonists?

          Show me the abuse of due process.

          The ACLU doesn’t even appear to be alleging an abuse of due process, and that’s telling.

          1. These morons will admit they don’t know what’s actually happening in one breath, then give you their very strong opinion about it with the next. They never cease to amaze me.

            1. It’s simple. We are saying, if it is true, it is outrageous.

              1. It’s outrageous that violent criminals are being arrested? How so?

                1. Again, the claim is that nobody was arrested. The claim is they were pulled off the street, intimidated for a while, then let go.

                  1. That’s your claim.
                    There are other claims being made.
                    Your claim is illegitimate.

                  2. It’s not *my* claim.

                    As I have said more than once here, I don’t claim to know all the facts. It would be unusual if we have gotten the full, accurate story from the news media. Sadly, it typically takes several days for facts to start appearing in the news.

                    1. And yet you are very sympathetic to it. Funny how that skepticism is so selective.

                    2. It is your claim.
                      Someone else made it, you’ve embraced it.
                      You’re arguing throughout this thread as if it were reality.
                      You keep talking out of both sides of your mouth based on convenience, as if people can’t see the entire thread

              2. Hmmm, and yet you will fight to your grave defending BLM from accusations that “if true” are far worse than outrageous.

          2. I am looking at the bigger picture, not just this ACLU filing. My questions is about unidentified agents arresting people off the street (if they have a warrant they did not say so, nor produce it). Those arrested are not told why, or what agency was holding them. There is little or no indication that they were focusing on antifa (who is really a right wing boogeyman anyhow), or had warrants, and were not in communication with local police.

            1. Those arrested are not told why, or what agency was holding them.

              source?

            2. antifa (who is really a right wing boogeyman anyhow)

              Oh, I see what’s going on here. (yes, i’m well aware that some silly boomers are being silly.)

            3. Two people supposedly claimed that they were arrested without being told the charges. But it’s not hard to find two people who’ll say any random shit–there are people who live in the internet age who are still making arguments that the earth is flat.

              1. Right, but what if in the next few days more evidence comes out that it is true, do you agree that it is wrong?

                1. Will you quit acting like a faggot on the internet when this obviously bullshit story falls through?

                  1. No he will not. But he’ll argue for days about BLM not being Marxist, then admit he ignored the link to the founder of BLM saying it was founded on Marxism.

            4. “My questions is about unidentified agents arresting people off the street (if they have a warrant they did not say so, nor produce it).”

              Habeas corpus goes back to the Magna Carta, at least, in the 13th century.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

              Its roots are as deep as any legal doctrine–and the ACLU has heard of it, I’m sure. They do not appear to be arguing for a writ of habeas corpus–and that is presumably because they have no basis for one. Instead, they’re issuing press releases claiming that people are being arrested off the street in a sensational way–but arresting people isn’t illegal, unconstitutional, or unjust if the police obtain an arrest warrant.

              If you have an arrest warrant, then arresting people and charging them with a crime is perfectly legal–and the ACLU doesn’t even appear to be contending that the arrests are illegal. They’re just wording their press releases in a sensational way–which doesn’t count for anything. If they have evidence that these people’s due process rights are being violated, then they should not only produce that evidence but also probably would have produced that evidence already. In the meantime, there is no evidence that I can see that any of these people’s due process rights have been violated in any way. There is only evidence that they’ve been arrested.

            5. “My questions is about unidentified agents arresting people off the street (if they have a warrant they did not say so, nor produce it).”

              How do you know they were arrested? Perhaps they were detained on the basis of reasonable suspicion (as the CBP had stated for one such individual per the WaPo article from yesterday). Perhaps they were detained for questioning as witnesses and were removed for the safety of the detainee and agents due to the volatility of the situation.

              When would you expect them to produce an arrest warrant? AIUI, agents (local, state, or federal) are not necessarily required to hand the arrestee a paper warrant and wait for him to read it before they cuff and Mirandize him.

              “Those arrested are not told why, or what agency was holding them.”

              I haven’t looked this morning, but as of the time of your post, was there evidence of this assertion other than claims attributed to Pettibone in the WaPo story?

              “There is little or no indication that they were focusing on antifa…”

              What clear indications of that would you expect for external observers, and why do you seem to assume that they need to (or should) focus on antifa? Antifa has both perpetrated and instigated violence, but not all of the violence and vandalism in Portland (and elsewhere) is “antifa”. Furthermore, antifa is so loosely organized that outside of its core, anyone who wants to say they are antifa is in that moment antifa, which is reminiscent of the hacker group “Anonymous”.

              “…antifa (who is really a right wing boogeyman anyhow)…”

              That assertion is either misinformed or disingenuous, and doesn’t deserve any further comment, particularly when it comes from someone who has attained a PhD in the areas of Nuclear Engineering/Physics (https://reason.com/2020/07/17/who-are-you-non-lawyers/#comment-8352074).

              “…and were not in communication with local police.”

              Would you point out where that is a legal requirement of fed agents? If there is such an onus on the feds, does it still apply in a case where the mayor has ordered local police not to assist the feds? One of the things I recall from the whole “sanctuary cities” kerfuffle was that the feds (INS and/or CBP) at the time didn’t believe that they were required to coordinate with uncooperative locals, but that could have changed after I stopped paying close attention to those issues.

              1. He simultaneously complains that people AREN’T being arrested for their Free Association in a group, and also claiming the group that should be focused on doesn’t exist.
                It doesn’t get more textbook pathological and cognitively dissonant than this

            6. “Unidentified”

              You mean the people who have “POLICE” clearly printed on their uniforms?

      2. Not sure why you keep talking about warrants. The stories, which admittedly might not be true or accurate, say there were no warrants.

        Hypothetically, if there are Federal agents driving around outside Federal properties in Oregon snatching people off the streets with no warrants, wearing no identifying information, are you OK with it?

        1. “Not sure why you keep talking about warrants. The stories, which admittedly might not be true or accurate, say there were no warrants.”

          I don’t see where it says that anywhere in this article. It just says the following:

          “Based on news accounts circulating that allege federal law enforcement detained two protesters without probable cause, I have requested the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General to open a separate investigation directed specifically at the actions of DHS personnel,” Williams said in a statement.”

          Did a judge say they didn’t have probable cause, or did the news media say they didn’t have probable cause? Because if they went and got an arrest warrant, it doesn’t matter what the news media says. For all we know, they’re looking for specific people because of things they admitted to doing or said they did online, and these were the people that were arrested “off the street”.

          Don’t tell me about news accounts.

          Go get a writ of habeas corpus and make the government justify these arrests or shut the fuck up about due process violations.

          There’s no mystery here about what to do if there’s a question about whether someone has been arrested without any justification. We’ve been doing the same thing to uncover and account for improper arrests for more than 700 years. The news media said this or that–so what? Go get a writ of habeas corpus and make the government defend their right to hold the people in question or you’re full of shit.

        2. Who are they snatching? Citizens at random , or identified criminal suspects?

          Do you have ANY idea how stupidLy you come across?

        3. hypothetically, if they are snatching up people who they have identified committed federal crimes on video, are you Ok with that?

    3. Finally, my paycheck is $ 8,500? A working 10 hours per week online. My brother’s friend had an average of 12K for several months, he work about 22 hours a week. I can not believe how easy it is, once I try to do so. This is what I do….
      Copy Here→→→→→ReadMore.

    4. What political philosophy do you have to be ok with “the people” taking over a neighborhood without permission of the residents, and then doing such a piss poor job of controlling it that four people are murdered, crime scenes destroyed so no one can be held responsible, and ambulances turned away?

      Portland police may be thugs, but they didn’t murder four people in one or two weeks.

      1. My question is not about the Portland police, nor the occupation of the park, it is about the federal agents.

        1. So you’re just blithely going to skip over the abuses by the people you defend that cause the situation you’re upset about. Fuck off you dishonest cunt.

          1. This is another instance of the words “dishonest” and “lie” being used in an odd way by commenters here.

            1. They learned it from you.

        2. Personally I only want to hear criticism of the feds in this case from people who criticized Russiagate. If you cheered it on like Reason and Cato then I know this is “who? whom?” bullshit and they’re just on antifas side.

          1. Why are you dragging a completely irrelevant matter into a discussion of policing in Portland?

            1. read all the way to the second sentence

              1. Doesn’t explain a thing.

              2. It is the most incredibly stupid comparison I can fathom

          2. So in other words you’re so intellectually dishonest that you won’t publicly agree with someone on an issue even when they’re right because you don’t agree with that person on every issue. Is that it? Solidarity is more important than integrity?

            1. You’re a very stupid person chemjeff. I’m not going to waste my explaining to you why I also don’t waste my time on people doing “who? whom?” legal theory, philosophy, etc.

            2. I guess sometimes people just stoop to your level.

          3. Are the Feds lying on their warrant applications in Portland?
            Do they actually know there are in fact no riots, that the whole thing is a story concocted by Republican operatives and the Chinese?

            1. What’s your point?

              1. Whats my point? What is the point of comparing 50 days of rioting to a partisan political hoax?

                1. Russiagate is useful as a baseline. If you cheered on the obvious improprieties by the highest levels of Justice and IC, then you don’t really care about a fair unbiased judicial system. If you wrote tens of articles on a report by extremely partisan prosecutors and never entertained the possibility that they could be lying or being deceptive, then I’m certain you’re acting in bad faith.

                  Therefore, I don’t give a shit about Reason & co. reporting on any criminal justice issues because I know there’s a predetermined conclusion and the story is cherry-picked facts/innuendo/Tweets in support.

      2. Where did MollyGodiva say she was OK with it?

    5. It is very telling that no one even tried to answer my question, but instead tried to use misdirection to change the topic.

      1. To those who support unidentified federal agents picking people off the streets: What political philosophy do you have that is ok with this?

        You left out the word ‘alleged’. Their ‘unidentified’ and ‘federal agents’ status have not been established except as hearsay. If there were arrest warrants then every rational philosophy would be ok with this.

        There are lots of facts that have not been established in this story, and yet many here on both sides are rushing to judgment.

    6. I will tell you what it is. It is tribal collectivism. It is the belief that everyone in a group should be labeled as collectively guilty of… something, as long as the group may be considered broadly to oppose the goals of the tribe. Look at people like R Mac above who claims to be libertarian but can’t bring himself to defend the rights of innocent protestors, because “they’re useful idiots” for Marxists or Antifa or whatever. His libertarian sensibilities run dry the moment he is asked to defend the rights of people who don’t align with his goals.

      1. “innocent protesters”

        1. Until proven guilty in a court of law, dick.

          1. Probably shouldn’t record themselves on video, vermin.

          2. Like the whole covid Thing? We are guilty of having it without proof ?

          3. So, we can’t arrest anybody until they have been convicted. Makes sense

          4. Oh, you mean like #RUSSIA?

            Dick.

        1. This is you, above:

          R Mac
          July.18.2020 at 1:41 am
          I’m aware they don’t. But in the hear and now, their are actual, individual people that live and work in these places whose rights are being violated daily, often violently.

          To me, that is much more important than someone else’s right to protest in the middle of the night standing side by side with people committing violence.

          So the rights of the people you like are more important than the rights of people you don’t like.

          1. Which party is violating the NAP? The protesters and rioters, obv.

        2. The protestors are “useful idiots for Marxists” and so their rights don’t matter so much. Who cares if the peaceful ones get lumped in with the violent ones?

          But the people whose property is vandalized, their rights matter very much. So much so that heavy handed police response is justified to clear away the vermin.

          1. But the people whose property is vandalized, their rights matter very much. So much so that heavy handed police response is justified to clear away the vermin.

            You’re right, chemtard–anyone destroying private property should be shot in the face by the property owners instead of calling the police to deal with it. Thanks for promoting the libertarian response!

            1. If violence is justified in the defense of property rights then violence is justified in defense of association rights. Agreed?

              1. Glad you agree that people destroying property should be shot.

                1. Red Rocks really cares about government property and it’s so convincing.

                  1. I care about leftists facing the consequences of their actions. Don’t try to burn down federal property if you don’t want the feds to arrest you.

                    1. Agreed. What does it have to do with me? And why doesn’t your guilt by association extend to right wingers? Are you not somewhat responsible for the OKC bombing? That was as anti-government as an action can get. Full of similar grievances to yours.

                    2. Why did you condemn the peaceful lockdown protests or the peaceful Tea Party rallies? Because you’re a dishonest hack and this is all about power and has nothing to do with any principles beyond that.

                    3. People advocating to spread disease and death are not acting peacefully.

                      I never disputed anyone’s right to protest peacefully. And I never said anyone’s crimes should be overlooked.

                      I just wonder why you care about exactly what FOX News tells you to care about at any given moment. Blacks people protesting by bad, global pandemic a hoax. Hmm…

                    4. The OKC bombing (25 years ago) was the work of one man with a couple of conspirators, all of whom were identified, prosecuted, and condemned across the board. “Militia” groups, via association made by others, were even condemned by both sides.

                      That is in no way comparable to people who stand side by side with those committing violence as they commit violence, and whose very presence is required for the violent act to act violently.

                    5. So is that a yes, we should arrest people who’ve committed no crime?

                    6. Agreed. What does it have to do with me?

                      If you’re personally destroying property, you should be shot. You said so yourself.

                    7. So is that a yes, we should arrest people who’ve committed no crime?

                      Ask the Mafia.

                    8. Blacks people protesting by bad, global pandemic a hoax. Hmm…

                      You sure do have this odd obsession with black people. You talk about them constantly.

                    9. People advocating to spread disease and death are not acting peacefully.

                      That is exactly what your “peaceful” BLM protesters did. I know, I know, the virus is smart. It doesn’t spread in large crowds not maintaining social distancing as long as those crowds are fighting for “social justice.” Preferably by burning buildings and stealing. Look, it’s peaceful. That burning building in the background was old anyway, and it’s cold in June. Everyone likes a fire.

                      Clown. Not only that but a racist clown.

          2. The protestors are “useful idiots for Marxists” and so their rights don’t matter so much. Who cares if the peaceful ones get lumped in with the violent ones?

            That’s the reality of protests: if you participate in one and it turns violent, you are part of a violent protest and will be treated as such by law enforcement and the legal system. Deal with it.

            But the people whose property is vandalized, their rights matter very much.

            Correct: property rights trump the rights of both violent and peaceful protesters.

            1. Precisely. Recall that your body is your property and the basis of all property rights.

              1. The irony being that you all are willing to excuse all manner of authoritarian denial of basic rights as long as it’s Team GOP doing it—and the only reason people let them have power is because they promise to take away a woman’s right to control her own body (or property, as you do disturbingly refer to it). What hijinx!

                1. You might be unaware that in some countries (Tsarist Russia, for example) people’s bodies belonged to the Tsar.

                  The woman owns her body, of course. But who owns the baby’s body?

                  Until the baby is a person, it is not able to own anything. When does that happen? This is the crux of the abortion debate.

                  In my view, we should use the same criterion as for when someone is considered dead – brain function. When it stops you are dead, and when it starts you are a person. I think that makes it about 20 weeks.

                  1. I think people who put so much emphasis on bodily autonomy should be pro-choice. Because otherwise absurdities follow.

                    Fetuses have never had personhood rights. You want to give them some, acknowledge that you’re taking away some pretty serious rights from adult humans.

                    1. I’m with you there. And we can make abortion legal just as soon as we get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, and nondiscrimination laws!

                      But as long as the government forced me to foot the bill for lewd behavior and to associate with people against my will, I’m going to use the government to impose my preferences on others because it’s the only option left to me.

                    2. They made you do it? Set an example. Stop trying to govern. Think of all the people’s backs you could get off of and take care of half the problem.

                    3. Because your “choice” ends at someone else’s life, but you already know that. I think that pro-choice advocates should be pro death penalty because it’s really no different than a late term abortion in Virginia.

                2. I have no problem with either Democrats or Republicans arresting people who participate in violent protests, regardless of whether the progress are socialists, fascists, Communists, or anarchists. That doesn’t violate anybody’s basic rights as far as I’m concerned.

                  In a libertarian society, if you engage in that sht once and you’ll be banned for life from most cities and businesses.

                  1. Thus the original concept of an “outlaw” – someone who exists outside legal protection because that person has violated that legal system’s laws.
                    All well and good until someone decides to rob, beat, and/or kill you

                3. or property, as you do disturbingly refer to it).

                  You mean the fetus? That “property?” It is pretty disturbing that you use literally the same language of slavery to describe it.

    7. To those who support unidentified federal agents picking people off the streets: What political philosophy do you have that is ok with this?

      You’re confusing philosophical issues with legal issues.

      Philosophically, I’m not OK with either paying federal income tax nor having federal agents pick up people anywhere.

      Practically, both of them are the law right now.

      Philosophically, I believe law enforcement should be privatized.

      Practically, I’m not OK with prohibiting government law enforcement without a private substitute.

      1. Seems like a person who expects a philosophical foundation for the law is not confused, and has their head on straight.

        1. Yes, the law should have a philosophical foundation. It currently doesn’t: the American left destroyed that.

    8. This is nothing new. They do it this way when they believe (or make a plausible argument) that this approach had the lowest chance of violence all around. It happens all the time. This is how violent criminal conspiracies are investigated.

  9. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given web pageReadMore.

  10. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE► Detail Here.

  11. Here is another video of people being snatched off the street.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Du6wEt3ja9_Y&ved=2ahUKEwj1ob2c7dbqAhUQPa0KHW7MDLEQo7QBMAR6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw1MbM2G4u5__r8A72zY_2sj

    I am not seeing any warrants or name tags or insignia or anything. This is authoritarian shit.

    1. Sorry that is not the correct link.
      Here is the correct link.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isuc5DHgE1M

      1. DHS already clarified that the agents don’t wear name tags for their own safety, and that they went after an individual suspected of assaulting police. They’re not “kidnapping” people off the streets.

        You can see tags on their chest and possibly on their shoulder, the video is too blurry see things clearly.

        Spend about 10 minutes reading through Andy Ngo’s twitter feed to see the kind of chaos that’s engulfing that region. They executed two people in their “autonomous zone” like 2 weeks ago. And now they’re trying to burn down federal courthouses. Commit federal crime, and federal agents can get involved.

    2. Given Portland’s strict gun control laws, the fact that they are carrying guns should be sufficient for you to recognize that they are legitimate agents of the state! /sarc

    3. Wait, do you think they show you the warrant before they pick you up?

  12. Here is an eyewitness account of someone who was picked up by the unlabeled unmarked guys in camo.

    https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-vehicles-portland-protesters/

    No warrants, no charges, a bare pretense of due process, and then an outright denial later on that it even happened in the first place.

    1. Oh, no! A bunch of anarcho-commies are getting a taste of what their ideal society actually looks like, and it turns out to not be Fully Automated Gay Space Communism!

      1. And right on cue, the fascists swoop down to defend the authoritarian bullshit.

        1. And right on cue, chemtard whines about his lefty boos suffering the consequences of their actions.

          1. Who are the ones both employing fascist tactics and advocating authoritarianism.
            Though authoritarianism is too weak a term – they are totalitarians through and through

            1. The government agents at the instruction of the racist paranoid orange freak in charge. That’s the ones.

              This may look like the cartoon version of jackbooted authoritarianism, but real people are being thrown in cages. Did you know that’s bad even if they have different politics from you?

              1. So your fellow travelers shouldn’t suffer the consequences of their actions?

                1. What are the consequences?

                  1. The ones you’re whining about.

              2. You mean the totally non-fascist brown shirts in Portland? Those “innocents?”

        2. Facists, Antifa, BLM, it’s like the Judean People’s Front, the People’s Front Of Judea, the Judean People’s Popular Front. You try so hard to distance yourself from each other, yet you’re the same.

        3. You really don’t know what fascism is, do you?

    2. One of those picked up say it was totally unfair.

      Well, I’ve never heard of a person telling a lie in their defense before, so this has to be legit.

      1. OJ’s gonna find Nicole’s killer any day now!

  13. If I recall correctly, both the Soviets and the Nazis nationalized their police to enact sweeping ‘crime reform’ (gun control) before turning on the people they were hired to protect.

    I think even the Romans were betrayed by their ‘elite’ police.

    Both sides were wrong in the Civil war and both sides are wrong today. We are being set up to nationalize the police by BOTH parties in power.

    The rioters are doing the work of DHS.

    So long as we continue on this path we are only mowing the heads off the weeds while the roots continue to spread and corrupt the lawn.

    End the War on Drugs and the property tax. Pull out the root. Shut down government schools forever and ban public employee unions. Anything less is doomed to fail.

  14. Reason magazine has only quoted far left wing politicians, pundits, and violent protestors and rioters for this article.

    This is by far one of the most slanted piles of garbage I have read here.

    Libertarianism is finally dead.

    1. There’s a simple reason why this outfit has become almost completely indistinguishable from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the rest of them: Matt “Welchie Boy” Welch wants it that way.

      1. No, Welch is not in charge. It’s KMW.

      2. Or because it is more interested in reporting facts instead of regurgitating the government line, from a government led by a certifiably insane authoritarian. You know the one thing you guys were supposed to guard us from?

        1. “Facts” like #RUSSIA? Or “facts” like Kavanaugh?

          Yeah, that worked out well.

          Jayson Blair was just a prelude to the fan-fic tabloids that NYT and wapo have become.

          1. The guy accused told you they were hoaxes, and that’s good enough for you!

            1. No, the Mueller report that you were sure was going to convict him, did.

              But literacy isn’t your strong suit. You just wait for the Daily podcast to give you your talking points.

    2. To be fair, libertarianism is supposed to be about protecting the interests of people against the abuses of power committee by government, but you know, gotta stop those abortions I guess, and if we have to put a few peaceful protesters in unmarked vans, well, think of the babies.

      1. It’s hilarious that captain lockdown obamacare suddenly finds limits to government power. And those limits only apply to actual enumerated government powers.

        You can’t make this stuff up. Goebbels and Stalin would be so proud of what they created.

        1. Just because you are a radical who prefers simplicity to knowledge doesn’t mean I’m extreme in the other way. As a liberal I am preoccupied with government abuses of power. That’s why I’m focused on government abuses of power right now.

          You’ll have to explain why you’re for unmarked government vans scooping up peaceful protesters from the street.

          1. You adore government abuses of power. You still have the fever dream of #RUSSIA. You know, the extra-legal spying abuse of government power on the rival party. You adore the obamacare mandate. You adore out of control regulations. You love the government withholding exculpatory information against Flynn.

            You despise government actually enforcing laws against rioters and arsonists. I understand how in your twisted little pravda-fed brain that seems like you care about civil rights, but you don’t.

    3. Wait a second. Libertarianism is dead because of a post on the reason.com blog?

  15. Here’s some interesting information from the New York Times:

    Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

    Those agents can carry firearms, arrest those accused of committing a crime without a warrant and conduct investigations “on and off the property in question.”

    . . . .

    The department has justified the tactics of the federal agents in Portland by pointing to dozens of episodes, including the defacement of federal property with graffiti, the damaging of buildings with fireworks and the throwing of rocks and bottles at officers.

    . . . .

    The lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.

    . . . .

    Mark Morgan, the acting secretary of Customs and Border Protection, said the agents did display signs that they were federal agents but withheld their names for their own safety.

    —-New York Times

    July 17. 2020

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/17/us/politics/federal-agents-portland-arrests.html

    1. Okay, Ken, if you look at 40 USC 1315, this is what it says:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

      (2)Powers.—While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may—
      (A)enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;
      (B)carry firearms;
      (C)make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;

      This is a very questionable tactic.

      Furthermore, if you look at the videos posted above, there was zero indication that the people being picked up were committing any type of felony.

      1. So, an officer sees a strange man sneaking out of his neighbor’s house, and hears the neighbor lady screaming and crying that she has been raped, and you think it is a questionable tactic for him to detain the strange man….

        1. There is no need to assume the protesters being picked up were actually in the act of committing a felony–nor were the Homeland Security people necessarily on federal property that would normally be under their jurisdiction.

          I am not a lawyer, but if spray painting public property isn’t a felony in Portland, it may be that you’d normally need an arrest warrant unless you caught them in the act. If someone in a black hoodie were walking down the street towards the courthouse with a can of spray paint, Homeland Security may have arrested them on that basis because of this law.

          And that’s the kind of thing people are alleging Homeland Security is doing.

          Perfectly legal according to this law–even if the law should be ruled unconstitutional.

    2. And so, it appears that the arrests themselves may be legal–even if they should be declared unconstitutional if the arrests were challenged in federal court.

      It appears that this joins a long list of laws that were enacted in the aftermath of 9/11 that should be repealed.

      The AUMF that authorized the invasion of Afghanistan a week after 9/11 gave the president the authority to invade any and every country in the world in perpetuity with the only condition being his own determination that his target can be in some way associated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The Obama administration used that AUMF to justify violating the Fourth Amendment rights of hundreds of millions of Americans by way of the NSA. Because what the NSA did should be considered unconstitutional, of course, doesn’t mean it was illegal by the courts, and the way to get rid of that provision in the law isn’t to pretend that the AUMF doesn’t say or do what it says and does. The way to get rid of the AUMF is to repeal it. The damn thing should have had a sunset clause in it at the very least when it was passed.

      The provisions of the Patriot Act are the basis for other things the government does that should be declared unconstitutional. Just because something should be unconstitutional, of course, doesn’t mean it’s been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and if the only legal basis for some of the awful things the government does is the Patriot Act, then insisting that those things are unconstitutional over the courts’ objections isn’t the solution to anything. The solution is to repeal the Patriot Act.

      In regards to these arrests in Portland:

      “The Secretary may designate employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including employees transferred to the Department from the Office of the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property.

      (2)Powers.—While engaged in the performance of official duties, an officer or agent designated under this subsection may—

      (A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons and property;

      (B) carry firearms;

      (C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of the officer or agent or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony;

      —-40 U.S. Code § 1315, Homeland Security Act of 2002

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315

      The solution to this awful and unconstitutional law is not for the ACLU to issue hyperbolic press releases. The solution is to repeal this section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to repeal this section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 already? I’ll tell you the most likely reason why the ACLU isn’t filing a write of habeas corpus for these protesters. It’s probably because an arrest warrant is unnecessary according to the law.

      1. The ACLU is doing more than issue a press release, they are challenging the legitimacy of this action in court. And good for them. In our system of governance, that is a perfectly legitimate method to contest the purported legitimacy of some government action. Sure it would be better if the Homeland Security Act were repealed or heavily amended to get rid of this egregious nonsense. But what the ACLU is doing is also a legitimate way to do things. And I get it, the ACLU is not a stalwart defender of liberty. They are not friends of the Second Amendment. Their defense of liberty in general is selective. But in this instance they are doing the right thing.

        Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to repeal this section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 already?

        Why hasn’t Mitch McConnell? Why hasn’t Trump? Why hasn’t anyone?

        Because both teams LIKE having the power to send in the troops whenever they want to and only complain when it’s the other side doing it.

        Do you want to tell us again why libertarians should all now be running to the ballot box begging to vote for Team Red?

        1. “The ACLU is doing more than issue a press release, they are challenging the legitimacy of this action in court.

          Where does it say that?

          I don’t see where the ACLU is contesting a single arrest.

          Maybe they are. I don’t see it. Quote where it says that in the story or post a link. Otherwise, you’re making shit up and telling us about your stupid feelings again.

          1. “The ACLU of Oregon’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeks a temporary restraining order against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and U.S. Marshals deployed to Portland from assaulting press and legal observers.”

            Do you see anything in that sentence that says the ACLU is contesting the arrest of these protesters without a warrant?

            1. No they are not challenging the legitimacy of the Homeland Security Act in total. I did not say that they were. They are challenging what the feds did to journalists. At least that is a step in the right direction.

              1. “The ACLU is doing more than issue a press release, they are challenging the legitimacy of this action in court.”

                We were talking about the arrest of protesters without a warrant.

                They do not appear to be contesting the arrest of protesters without a warrant. That is presumably because it’s legal–even though it shouldn’t be constitutional.

                Reality is not whatever your feelings want it to be.

                1. Yes Ken you got me. The ACLU isn’t doing everything that I would like them to do. But they are doing something positive.

                  Just heard on the news that Oregon AG is filing a civil rights lawsuit. Let’s see how that turns out

                  1. Funny how your pragmatism suddenly jumps into play. It’s almost like you really don’t have any principles at all..

                2. No Law Officer anywhere needs a warrant if he belIeves a crime has been committed in his presence, Cmon, Ken. Do you think they run from the scene of the robbery to a judge?

        2. . Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi introduced a bill to repeal this section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 already?

          Like most congresscritters Pelosi wants that sharp tool available for the next Donkey Prez.

          1. Or maybe she’s just as afraid of anti-fa as anyone and what it’s doing to her party. Anti-fa isn’t in league with Pelosi. They’re in league with her SJW rivals like AOC. Taking anti-fa down a notch is probably doing Pelosi a solid favor.

            1. Antifa is beholden to no one. They are an inconsequential group of internet anarchists who no politician considers a serious interest group.

              Contrast with QAnon, a truly sick paranoid rightwing conspiracy outfit that not only my crazy uncle subscribes to but the president of the United States and much of his political party.

              When you start waxing Bill Kristol-like about law and order, spare a few thoughts for the guy who just pardoned his friend who went to prison for lying in service of his massive corruption. That guy runs the government you’re supposed to be skeptical of.

              1. You mean like the President who pardoned the leader of a terrorist group?

              2. What massive corruption? He misremembered the details of an email that had nothing to do with corruption.

                You should realize you are a much bigger idiot and loon than your crazy uncle, right? Also, Q has inspired no violence, other than one nut barging into a pizza place with a gun, harming nobody and destroying nothing

                1. If I wanted some ridiculous bore to defend Trump at me I would have talked to my toilet plunger.

                  1. You really shouldn’t bring politics into your intimate relationships.

              3. “Antifa is beholden to no one. They are an inconsequential group of internet anarchists who no politician considers a serious interest group.”

                I didn’t say they were beholden to AOC. I said they were in league with her. They’re working for the same objectives–social justice + socialism. They’re like Sinn Fein and the IRA. One of them uses peaceful means. The other not so much

                And in terms of being inconsequential, there are 1,024 current or former business owners in Minneapolis who probably disagree with you.

                https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-st-paul-buildings-are-damaged-looted-after-george-floyd-protests-riots/569930671/

              4. Qanon is the end of the world but antifa is a figment of people’s imaginations.

                You just keep on being you, Tony.

                1. “It’s different when we do it and actually mainstream it.” -Tony

                  1. That’s precisely what he’s arguing. He’s not pissed about the party vans, he’s mad because it’s happening to his political allies.

      2. No Law Officer anywhere needs a warrant if he belIeves a crime has been committed in his presence, Cmon, Ken. Do you think they run from the scene of the robbery to a judge?

        1. I’m not saying that an arrest warrant was necessary. In fact, we found out that a warrant isn’t necessary because the president invoked a section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that specifically states an arrest warrant isn’t necessary.

          What I was saying is that for all the critics knew, they did have an arrest warrant! In fact, none of the reports people were citing seemed to indicate that there wasn’t an arrest warrant–only that there were rumors of no probable cause at the time these people were arrested. For all anybody knew, these people had outstanding arrest warrants for acts that were perpetrated before they were picked up “off the street”.

          1. Except, at least some of the people who were picked up off the street have stated that they weren’t told why they were being detained, were taken to an undisclosed location, weren’t charged with anything, were intimidated and then released. They may be lying, but that’s what they said.

            If they are not lying, it is not an arrest or detainment for questioning. It was kidnapping for purposes of intimidation.

            1. I don’t see any of the things you’re alleging in this piece, and the people who were alleging this must be illegal without knowing whether there were arrest warrants weren’t citing the stories you’re telling now.

              1. I’ve been reading more than just what is in the post above.

                I couldn’t follow what you said in the last part of what you wrote.

                1. So, in other words, you really are a White Knight for Marxist Terrorists, and will swallow and happily regurgitate whatever bullshit they feed you. In fact, you will actively hunt for more bullshit to swallow and regurgitate.

      3. “And so, it appears that the arrests themselves may be legal…”

        They may be. They may not be. Hopefully, we’ll find out more and get to the truth.

    3. You know what would be hilarious? If the people getting picked up were actually informants, but the “arrests” are set up to make it look like they’re getting disappeared for a couple of hours to maintain their cover.

      1. It looks like that’s what’s happening in some of the cases, Red.

        So, these accused, if they actually are Antifa, have pet NLG lawyers on speed dial. Where are the arraignments? Where are the bond hearings? As Ken keeps asking, where are the habeas proceedings? They should be on PACER pretty soon, if not now.

        These accused aren’t getting renditioned to a black site, if only because the optics of that would be awful to Ursula Undecided-Voter, and her bestie, Wilma Whitebread-Voter.

        1. The interesting thing is the supposed “catch and release” that’s going on.

          These guys are either informers; CBP picked them up and they squealed on their comrades to avoid getting thrown in the clink to become a sword swallower for Jose and D’Travius; or CBP swept their phones for info on their Antifa contacts to get some bigger fish.

      2. That’s 100% happening. Whether it’s a part of the current retard panic is the only question.

      3. So, you made up a thing below about state governors purposely encouraging antifa to damage Federal property. And you made this up.

        It’s cool if you want to speculate, but do you believe these things you are making up?

        1. No, he actually speculated. It’s cool if you want to hold people accountable for their words, but do you believe it’s alright to lie about them and grossly misrepresent what they said?

          His actual post:

          I wouldn’t be surprised if Wheeler, Wyden, and the governor and AG are actively encouraging Antifa to target federal property at this point specifically to provoke a federal response. It’s the only way they can get the martyrs they need.

          So why did you have to lie about it? Is your argument so weak that you have to invent strawmen?

  16. Why would anyone in their right mind think that violent insurrectionists would be treated any differently today than they were in the mid 19th century?

    This out of control mob insanity has been going on for almost two freaking months now. If anything, the feds have mostly been treating them with kid gloves to this point.

    1. You apparently can’t handle freedom very well.

      But you never cared about anyone’s freedom besides your own. And you have always thought property more important than people.

      And you’re a silly, sad victim of propaganda, but that’s only your fault to the extent that you have no functioning critical capacity. Probably blame your parents?

      1. You apparently can’t handle freedom very well.

        Does this “freedom” include the freedom to Mario-stomp your comrades into the asphalt?

      2. What I like so much about Tony are these threads where his every post reads like he’s in a confessional

      3. And you’re a silly, sad victim of propaganda, but that’s only your fault to the extent that you have no functioning critical capacity. Probably blame your parents?

        But #RUSSIA!

        1. The subject needs only be told by the accused party that the accusation is a hoax, and despite the extensive disturbing evidence of Russia election interference and the president’s involvement, the subject prefers the narrative of the accused.

          In fact, he feels he needs only to mention the word “Russia” and then supposes everyone around him will automatically get that this is about the president’s malfeasance and the claim that it’s all a hoax despite the president’s continued corrupt behavior on national TV, such as pardoning his co-conspirator. Ladies and gentleman the most gullible person ever to have lived.

          1. “extensive disturbing evidence”

          2. No evidence. None. Despite the Mueller report which was written entirely by hardcore dem partisans not a SINGLE American was every charged with any sort of “collusion” with Russia over the 2016 election. Gullible is the idiot who actually believes that there was.

  17. IF Trump and his minions are acting out on one of his nutty beliefs about what’s going on in the world, this is another red light flashing to get rid of him in November.
    IF citizens in Portland are being illegally victimized with full knowledge of the Mayor and Governor who are doing nothing about it, these people in Portland should expect some intervention by the federal government, although in a more above board manner.
    The greatest defender of state’s rights in America in the last sixty years was probably George Wallace.

  18. “the full fire power of the ACLU”

    Let the slapping begin.

  19. Did you know there’s a “deep detox” you can do first thing in the morning to burn more fat? And the good news is It only takes 13-seconds! Here it is—>>Click For Full Detail Here.

  20. Did not anyone advise Ron Wyden to at least start with “We appreciate the efforts to protect federal property, but…”

    1. Yep–Wyden’s gone full seditionist because his commie vanguard fucked up and started targeting federal property. Should have tard-wrangled these idiots and told them to leave that shit alone, considering the feds hadn’t done squat against the rioters up to that point.

  21. Well, this should give our little fascists around here a boner:

    https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892393079/dhs-official-on-reports-of-federal-officers-detaining-protesters-in-portland-ore

    CUCCINELLI: Well, we are – we welcome – the more investigations, the better. With as much lawbreaking is going on, we’re seeking to prosecute as many people as are breaking the law as it relates to federal jurisdiction. That’s not always happening with respect to local jurisdiction and local offenses. But, you know, this is a posture we intend to continue not just in Portland but in any of the facilities that we’re responsible for around the country.

    So there’s going to be some LAWN ORDER coming to a town near you, very soon!

    1. chemtard whines because his lefty boos can’t destroy federal property with impunity.

      1. Just take the shackles off “we the people” and say that the federal government won’t intervene on behalf of the “protesters”
        Let us do the rest

        1. Right on cue here come the fascists

          1. “RITE UN Q”

          2. He’s advocating for exactly the same rights as your fascist brethren in antifa. But like the actual fascist you are, you find the thought of pushback terrifying.

            1. Exactly. That is exactly what has happened in P9rtland for YEARS now. Fascists goons can beat citizens in full view of the police, who have been ordered not to interfere, uh, ‘ escalate’

          3. Man you really don’t understand what that word means.

      2. That’s some nice authoritarianism there.

        1. “WHY CAN’T WE HAVE SPACE TO BURN CITIES DOWN IT’S LIMITING OUR RIGHTS TO DESTROY”

          1. And you’d be saying the same thing if scary black people weren’t involved?

            1. Portland is a black city?

            2. And you’d be saying the same thing if they weren’t?

            3. I didn’t realize all those white agitators that have been starting shit were actually black people.

              Jesus Christ, at least know who is actually doing most of the violence you racist fuck.

      3. Q: How do you turn a Rugged Individualist into a boot-licking authoritarian?

        A: Elect a Republican.

        1. You get what you fucking deserve.

          1. So do you.

            1. Yep, looks like your little anarcho-tyrannic ideal isn’t exactly Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism, is it?

              Not a peep out of you when people are having their livelihoods and property destroyed, nor being harrassed by angry mobs, but the second you get vanned for trying to burn down federal property, it’s “OH NOES MUH RITES!”

              Pathetic. You wanted anarchy, now you’re getting just a small taste. So stop crying like a bitch about it, and lay back and think of England.

              1. I wanted anarchy!? No, anarchy is what you were screaming for between ’08 and ’16. You’ve since gone from “That traffic cop gave me a ticket – THIS IS JUST LIKE STALINISM!!!1!” to “Unidentified authorities disappearing people? I’m down with that”.

                May I ask why the sudden change of heart? You were pretty chill with people commandeering an federal building not too long ago.

                1. You have to remember, RRWP, Nardz, and Shithead represent our trio of resident fascists around here. They’ve advocated for the murder of the protestors and, in the case of Shithead, for all progressives everywhere. I can only imagine the reason why they pollute the comment boards of a libertarian publication is that they’ve been banned everywhere else, except perhaps Breitbart, 8chan, and Stormfront.

                  1. chemtard’s butt-blasted because his lefty boos are suffering the consequences of their actions.

                  2. You don’t know what the fuck fascism is, jeff.
                    Self defense ain’t it

                    1. Self defense by and for the government against dissenters is, pretty much.

                    2. “dissenters”

              2. Now that I think about it, Reason covered that incident at the wildlife reservation quite extensively. Shall we hop in the WAYBAC machine and see what you thought of the sanctity of federal property back then?

                1. Hell, let’s talk about Malheur–here’s your fellow travelers commenting on NPR during that incident:

                  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 ?

                  Guess government force isn’t so awesome when it’s being used against you, is it?

              3. LMAO–you’re projecting more than a 25-screen movie theater. All that hair dye and daddy issues have emulsified your brains.

                1. That’s the best you can come up with?

                  1. It’s certainly spicier than “bootlicker.”

        2. “Q: How do you turn a Rugged Individualist into a boot-licking authoritarian?”

          If there are bootlicking authoritarians in this equation, it’s definitely the social justice warriors in anti-fa and the progressives who cheer them on. They’re using BLM as a righteous cause and anti-fa as their brownshirts.

          “[The SA’s] primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties . . . and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and, especially, Jews

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung

          anti-fa’s list of enemies might be different (not that you could tell by the SJW’s opinion of Israel), but the tactics and purpose are very much the same–protection for rallies, disrupting the meetings of opposing organizations, fighting with them, and trying to intimidate their enemies. Hell, on that last point, I’ve even seen lefties in Portland quoted here at Hit & Run earlier this week saying that we shouldn’t provoke protesters for fear of a violent backlash. I guess that means everyone’s afraid of these violent thugs.

          1. It’s interesting, if you read down the column at that link, the SA volunteers were mostly attracted to the promise of socialism in “National Socialist” party, too.

            “Many of these stormtroopers believed in the socialist promise of National Socialism. They expected the Nazi regime to take more radical economic action, such as breaking up the vast landed estates of the aristocracy, once they obtained national power.[19]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung#Rise

            History rhymes again.

            It’s a good thing Biden is such a bumbling fool, too, because if it were a progressive with some balls who knew what to do with these socialist Greenshirts, instead of Biden, we’d really be in trouble.

  22. Portland is a one-horse town.

      1. Full of Donkeys on ‘shrooms.

  23. Thank God for the ACLU!
    Bringing in the feds might end all these peaceful protests in Portland prematurely.

    1. Do you have any concern about lack of due process?

      1. No real evidence there of lack of Due Process. None. Vague claims of harassment, being questioned, etc.

        As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is likely that the feds are crossing all of their t’s and dotting all of their i’s, because they don’t want their cases to be thrown out. The question with Due Process is how much process is due, when. Very little is due until an actual arrest is made, and such niceties as Miranda Warnings can be delayed for such nicetities as exigent circumstances (such as an ongoing riot). They may not be able to question an arrestee until he is Marandized, but that just means that anything that he says before then cannot be used against him in court.

      2. Do you have any evidence?

      3. Do you have any concern about riots?

  24. Unfortunately this is exactly what blue city leaders are doing. They’re literally allowing their towns to burn as an attempt to goad Trump into responding.

    Jenny Durkan fucked herself on this issue, and Trump did the exact right thing by letting Seattle burn. All the rainbow flag waving, virtue signaling in the world couldn’t save her. He should do the same with Portland.

    1. I wouldn’t be surprised if Wheeler, Wyden, and the governor and AG are actively encouraging Antifa to target federal property at this point specifically to provoke a federal response. It’s the only way they can get the martyrs they need.

      1. Do you have any evidence? If not, you just made up a conspiracy theory out of whole cloth right in front of our eyes.

        1. No, he mentioned a possibility that’s a very logical conclusion based on the evidence

        2. I said “I wouldn’t be surprised,” you obtuse cretin.

          1. White knight has picked his narrative, from literally the least trustworthy sources involved, and he’s going to continue as if it is reality.
            Common behavior for those with personality disorders

        3. He has as much evidence as this speculation about kidnapping. You seem to like to wear that cloth prominantly.

    2. So is destroying stuff a good thing or not? Only good when Trump does it? Does he shit rainbows too?

      1. what ‘stuff’ has Trump destroyed? ( this should be good)

    3. Again I’m going to link to video from Chicago.
      http://twitter.com/DominicGwinn/status/1284285480587206658?s=19

      Notice anything (besides the one cop who has amazing hands)?
      No helmets, no shields, no way for the cops to really defend themselves as all sorts of projectiles, including explosives, are thrown at them.
      Why?
      Because Columbus was a dick 600+ years ago, and the leftist mayor of Chicago supports the BLM/Antifa commies

      1. Are you jealous that after years of your posturing about being anti-government, it was the leftists who really showed up and illustrated how to be anti-government?

        But think of the sanctity of the public statuary! Totally a definitive libertarian value!

        1. So basically, you’re saying violence is okay if it’s for a leftist cause.

          You’re making a great case for why anything that hurts you and your side is now justifiable.

          1. It IS OK for communists, fascists republicans, greens, CPUSA and democrats. Where you been?

            1. Finally took the needle out of your arm long enough to shitpost, eh?

        2. I’m still anti government. Oh… oh you thought the government was resisting BLM and all of its ancillary movements?

          And if I truly believed that this movement was going to bring the system down and let people work out for themselves what new system would be in its place, I wouldn’t so concerned. I’ll reiterate again (for the umpteenth time), this movement doesn’t scare me. A couple of gender-neutral twinks in bikinis doesn’t scare me. But the entire system, from the city, to the state, to the police, to the prosecutors… when they support it to, then I get scared. Because that ain’t anarchy. It’s a violent crackdown utilizing brownshirts in the streets to enforce its will when it couldn’t be done democratically.

          1. The guys with the firearms, shields, body armor, and uniforms—that’s the system.

            1. The leftist governments where the riots are occurring, mainstream media, corporate America, and basically all that is “establishment” disagree.
              I don’t know what the system could possibly be if not them, and BLM is their pet

              1. Yes, everyone’s to blame except Trump.

                This is the sorriest pile of pathetic horseshit I’ve ever witnessed in my 20 years of watching politics.

                You people talk about cities like you’re aliens from the planet Retard. Major American cities are largely quite pleasant places to be and aren’t at all anarchic hellscapes.

                Have you ever been to one of these places? Have you ever stepped beyond the cow pasture past yonder crick? What is this absurdity you’re being spoonfed?

                I’ll take a media that reports facts and doesn’t indulge idiots with hysterical nonsense. And I’ll take Democrats believing in facts over the clown fire in the White House. If they’re the establishment I’ll take them over your jack-booted thugs who are just doing the lord’s work I guess.

                1. Is Tony actually claiming that other people have no clue what the world is like?

                  Seriously?

                2. “Have you ever been to one of these places?”

                  Last time I was in Atlanta, a month ago, I woke up at 2 am to the sounds of a gunfight 100 feet away. Same place I’d earlier watched a BLM march of about 120 participants. 3 people were shot.
                  2 weeks later, the same night the 8 year old was murdered by BLM militia, 14 people were shot at the same place as the previous gunfight

                3. Yeah, it’s Trump’s fault when Democratic-run cities can’t, or won’t, contain their own rioters. LMAO

                  1. This D vs. R “black protesters are the biggest threat the world has ever known” narrative is so ingrained in you that to even question any of it doesn’t make coherent sense to you, does it? That’s how much power Tucker has over you.

                    1. Hint: when you’re the person who always introduces race into the conversation, you might be the racist

                    2. Funny, I didn’t mention anything about the race of the protesters. In fact, I mocked Esmereldshit yesterday for arguing that very thing about Portland.

                      Why do you automatically assume that all the rioters are black?

                    3. Why do you rightwing assholes always ignore every problem in the world until one comes along that involves black people being uppity?

                    4. Why are you left-wing assholes so race-obsessed?

                    5. Because Democrats never stopped being the party of segregation. And the eugenics movement of the 20’s was the first great leap forward of the progressive era. This is why PP must be defended at all costs. It’s by far the most powerful way to control the plantation population.

        3. You fucks are about as anti government as Stalin.

    4. So, you know what is in their secret hearts? You can see inside their thoughts, and know that this is the game they playing, as opposed to, say, having a flaw of being overly lenient, or naive, or wanting to try to handle things themselves/their way.

      And you’re sure they are reluctant to call in Federal help, because they don’t want Trump to send in troops ever, because they want no involvement with him?

    1. OMG Thank you soooo much for this. 🙂

  25. I don’t know what to say really what you share is so good and helpful to the community, I feel that it makes our community much more developed, thanks. Heres what I do…Heres what I do …. Heres what I do… Read More. 

  26. HA. The federal government is rounding up peaceful protestors on a guilt-by-association basis because the president is a paranoid cable news and QAnon addict, and fucking self-described libertarians are just fine with it.

    Before Trump, you guys used to lecture me about how I didn’t have any principles. At least you stopped that, perhaps realizing how ridiculous you now sounded claiming to be in favor of limited government but defending a cartoon authoritarian on a daily basis.

    Good. This shit needed to die. Go join the GOP shitkickers so you never even have to pretend to care about anyone’s civil rights other than your own right to fuck your cousins in peace.

    1. The antifa were trying to burn down federal courthouses. They shot two people without warrant or any justification in CHOP only about 2,3 weeks ago.

      The only people acting like an invading army are your violent left wing buddies.

      1. They would probably say something like you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs, but that’s their business. You want to lump me and ever Democrat and everyone fighting for black civil rights in with the 10 Antifa troublemakers they manage to get footage of, all because Tucker tells you to think exactly that.

        You must realize that the logic of collective guilt you’re imposing require me to consider you reconcile for the actions of Tim McVeigh and other rightwing terrorists, don’t you? Do you feel that is fair or helpful?

        1. Except these assholes have the explicit support of the Democrats and you, so don’t get pissy when you get lumped in with them.

          1. That’s a bit too broad a statement. You can make a strong case that the Democratic Party supports the Black Lives Matter organization, and it’s not even a question that they support the broader, informal “Black Lives Matter” cause. I’ve seen some Democrats defend antifa, too.

            BUT, your statement is too broad if it implies the Democratic Party is united in being in favor of shootings, rioting, and other violence and property destruction. Being in favor of those things is beyond the pale, and not supported, by many Democrats.

            1. No, it’s right on.

              1. OK, you feel a need to have a worldview in which the Democrats are the demons behind everything bad that is going on.

                1. A worldview as close to reality as possible is a necessary thing.
                  The compulsive denial white knight displays, though, is rather unhealthy.

                2. Because they are.

                3. And yet you have no problem collectivizing the police. But hypocrisy is just what you eat for breakfast.

            2. Cheese and rice, we live in a world where, for the last 30 years, if the R candidate for dog catcher in Springfield MO says something slightly controversial, every single Republican elected official in the country must be called to account for it. And yet, there is an entire caucus of Congressional Democrats behind these violent Marxists, the majority have adopted their slogans and goals, and have drafted legislation to do so, and yet it is not a Democrat Party problem, BECAUSE the D dog catcher in Springfield MO may be a holdout

            3. There have been 50 days of rioting and destruction in Portland. No Democratic official has been willing to challenge that by your own admission. Seattle deliberately ceded CHAZ to antifa/blm/peoplesliberationfrontofjudea. The Minneapolis Mayor deliberately ceded the 3rd precinct to riotors. Baltimore deliberately allowed the riotors “some space.” Detroit, NYC. The list goes on. And all the while calling them “peaceful protesters” and justifying their actions. It’s amazing how much you suddenly think two wrongs make a right when it’s your preferred political group doing the wrong.

              But Motte and Bailey is an effective strategy to use when the facts don’t support your argument, so I understand why you use it.

        2. Define “civil rights”? rights the govt determines…look the only responsibility govt has in regard to any “group” is to not discriminate or pass laws forcing private citizens to discriminate..after that its free association. And if that means social outcomes that make you feel uncomfortable..screw it…it’s called liberty. As an “ethnic” I can point out all sorts of “outcomes’ in regulated industries and the media/entertainment industry that suggest my “tribe” is being discriminated but so what? Portland has bolshevik bullies attacking the bill of rights…time for liberation by the Feds…

        3. Black people have the same civil rights everybody have

          1. And besides, they never experienced anything remotely as unpleasant as the Great Mask Tyranny.

            1. Funny how no buildings were burned nor people shot, raped, assaulted during those entirely (not “mostly”) peaceful protests. And yet you were apoplectic over free people exercising their rights to peaceably assemble. Because it’s not about the principle, it’s about the power for you. And the thought of your brownshirts being impeded in any way just frustrates the hell out of you.

        4. “You want to lump me and ever Democrat and everyone fighting for black civil rights”

          …by acting like blacks are incompetent children who desperately need their white saviors like Tony here to show them the way?

          You realize your views on blacks are less enlightened than the Klan’s, circa 1920, right?

          1. I bet yours are worse.

            1. So you admit you’re a klansman.

            2. I think blacks are more than capable of acting like adults and don’t need white saviors to show them the way.

              That alone puts me above you.

      2. Someone shot two people without warrant or any justification in CHOP. How do you know that they were antifa? If you have information about the identity of the shooters, you should go talk to police.

        1. Lol
          I’ve posted on Twitter numerous times to the Seattle PD, mayor durkan, and the chief of police.
          CHOP had a defined security team, almost all of whom have appeared in various recordings. In the immediate aftetmath of the second shooting, where the 16 year old was executed, you can here one of them apologize for running out of bullets. Numerous times recorded discussion confirmed that there were two shooters, and that they were members of the security team.
          Identifying the shooters would not be difficult. Arrest everybody present, as seen on video, for felony murder. Find out who was on the security team. Reputedly, the John Brown Gun Club were the members. Arrest them all for felony murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Get them to reveal who the shooters were.
          There’s one person, identified in other recordings as “James” (whose last name, ironically, may be Madison – if it’s not just an slias) whose voice sounds quite similar to the man saying “oh, you’re still alive – wanna get pistol whipped” immediately before the sound of a single gunshot.
          But apparently nobody in a position to do anything about it is interested in doing so.
          And people such as yourself are all too happy to excuse it

        2. Suddenly you’re no longer interested in speculating and only want to stick to the facts. Funny, I wonder what changed. Oh, wait…

    2. HA. The federal government is rounding up peaceful protestors on a guilt-by-association basis because the president is a paranoid cable news and QAnon addict, and fucking self-described libertarians are just fine with it.

      No, we’re not “fine with it”. But among the two alternatives you put on the table it’s the preferable one.

      What us libertarians would really prefer is for downtown Portland to be private property and the private property owners being able to kick the protesters out altogether.

  27. “Peaceful” protesters. Lol. The civil liberties of those citizens under siege by entitled assholes destroying their property is guaranteed by the Constitution. There are plenty of cities around the country where the protesters actually are peaceful, and guess what, no Federal agents. It’s not that hard to figure out, even for a child. I guess they moved adulthood back again.

    1. Well, due process is guaranteed by the Constitution. There are questions here about due process and jurisdiction.

      Also, there is an issue, which has been brought up before regarding other police in other George Floyd-related protests, about whether it is a good idea to allow police officers to remove identifying badges, etc. from their uniforms.

      1. Well if the assholes weren’t violating the civil rights of the other US citizens that live there by assaulting them and destroying their properties OR if the local government were actively protecting those citizens rights, then yes the Feds should not be involved. But that’s not what’s happening. As far as due process goes, I don’t believe that there is enough information yet to say whether that is an issue or not. Cleary they deserve due process. I’m not surprised that a bunch of spoiled college brats who declared war against the United States are now whining about not being able to identify their targets. Fuck them with a red hot poker.

  28. I am confused, once again, by Libertarian values. So many people are not only okay with this but cheering on the ‘secret police abducting people off the streets’. How much more Orwellian can it get? Don’t tell me about Portland ‘deserving it’ or that I am a Marxist sympathizer….
    I loathe them, but I am not a hypocrite and won’t root for unlawful, unconstitutional treatment of those I oppose.
    Let the state handle it, and if they don’t then that’s what they get for voting in communists.
    Not a Trump fan but the smartest thing he had done was NOT get involved, this move is playing in to their hands, at minimum, and a horrifying precedent to be set for Orwellian style state policing.

    1. I’m certainly not in favor of the subsection of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that makes this legal. You can tell because I pointed it out and called for its repeal.

      The things is, just because I don’t want something to be true doesn’t mean it’s a lie, and just because I don’t want it to be legal for Homeland Security to arrest protesters like this doesn’t mean I have to lie about it being illegal.

      The great thing about being a libertarian capitalist is that our arguments stand up to the test of reality. It’s the authoritarians and the socialists who need to pretend things are true or false to get their ideas across.

      Here are some examples of libertarian truth.

      I’d support the First Amendment even if repealing it meant there would be less stupidity in the world.

      I’d support the Second Amendment even if repealing it meant fewer mass shootings.

      I’d support the Fourth Amendment even if violating it really did lead to fewer terrorist attacks.

      I’d support the Fifth Amendment even if repealing it meant fewer rapists and murderers went free.

      I have a qualitative bias for freedom, and that’s about the extent to which bias consciously enters my thinking. There are terms for people who only believe in facts if they support their qualitative preferences. Those terms are “delusional”, “willfully obtuse, and “intellectually dishonest”. I’m not about to be any of those–not consciously anyway.

      So, we’re supposed to pretend something is illegal even though it isn’t–just because we think it should be unconstitutional? There are lots of things that should be unconstitutional that aren’t treated as such. This one of them. The law that authorizes this should be repealed, and everybody who pretends that what they’re doing is illegal is hurting the cause of getting it repealed. After all, if the law that authorizes this doesn’t really authorize it, then what’s the point of repealing the law?

      1. Can you clarify what you have said above about the legality of these alleged actions under the Homeland Security Act? You have written above about it being legal if the Federal agents have a warrant? Can you clarify if it is legal if they do not have a warrant?

      2. So… If something is unconstitutional, we’re supposed to pretend it’s legal just because the feds pass a law saying it’s OK?

        1. I mean 18 USC 242 would still make such a thing illegal, even if you wanna differentiate the constitution from the law.

        2. As I wrote far above, there are all sorts of things that are unconstitutional but are considered legal by the courts.

          It is perfectly legal for the government to prohibit you from growing wheat on your own property for your own consumption even if the wheat never leaves your farm–because the Constitution says the federal government regulates commerce among the several states.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

          That is the stupidest fucking decision. What the government does based on Wickard v. Filburn is completely unconstitutional as far as I’m concerned or pretty much any libertarian is concerned–but that doesn’t mean it’s illegal. The Supreme Court said it was legal–and so at least half of what the government does (much of which is based on Wickard v. Filburn) is perfectly legal even if it should be unconstitutional.

          If we pretend the world is the way it should be when it isn’t that way at all, we end up living in a world of make believe rather than changing the real world to be the way it should be.

          America is full of laws that should be unconstitutional but weren’t ruled that way. The solution to that problem isn’t to pretend they’re constitutional, but it isn’t to pretend they’re illegal either.

          Just because something should be illegal doesn’t mean it is.

          Rational people separate the way things should be from the way they are. If you want to argue that this should be illegal and the law that permits it should be repealed and the Supreme Court should rule it’s unconstitutional, then I’m right there with you. If what they’re doing is legal according to the law and it was ruled constitutional–then that’s the fact regardless of whether I think the facts should be something else. In fact, if you refuse to admit that what they’re doing is legal according to the law, then you’re hurting the cause of getting that law repealed.

          1. Violating constitutional rights is, in fact, illegal. Depriving someone of life, liberty, or property through executive decisions that do not pass constitutional muster is a deprivation of rights. The answer is not to pretend that the government is not capable of violating the law, but to hold them accountable to the law which they ignore.

            The problem is, the government creates a bevy of contradictory law and then pretends that its OK so long as any law seems to excuse an action. That’s not how the law actually works, in theory, violating any statute makes an action illegal unless there is an explicit exception to that statute.

            But in effect the government decides what it will do, and how laws are to be enforced, and how you petition it for change. You seem to be overly concerned with sounding “reasonable” such that you think calling out manifestly illegal actions that are generally accepted as a matter of course is extremist. It isn’t. What is extremist is the position that the law is synonymous with only that cherry – picked parts of the law the government sees for to enforce this week, rather than the whole body of law ratified by the states and passed and not repealed by legislators.

            1. “Violating constitutional rights is, in fact, illegal.”

              This statement is factually incorrect.

              If they pass a law tomorrow saying that no one is allowed to own a handgun, shotgun, or rifle for any reason, that would be unconstitutional.

              If the Supreme Court refused to hear a case someone brought for having their Second Amendment rights violated by that law, the unconstitutional law would remain legal.

              If the Supreme Court took the case and ruled that banning the ownership of all firearms is perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, then the law in question would remain legal.

              Legality only depends on constitutionality if the Supreme Court says its unconstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is either being delusional, willfully obtuse, or intellectually dishonest. Usually it’s a function of being delusional. They can’t tell the difference between the way things should be and the way they are.

              It’s like child saying, “That’s not fair!”

              What’s legal depends on the opinions of five out of nine justices, all of whom are appointed for life and are more or less unaccountable for their rulings by design.

              1. 18 USC 242 and a slew of state statures makes it illegal to violate rights. There are also often not exceptions in assault, fraud, and the like for actions federal agents take. It merely doesn’t apply because no one prosecuted them.

                Since we’re comparing to children now, just because your mommy tells you the rules don’t apply to her doesn’t mean they don’t. You have to look at what the rules actually say. You wouldn’t let the accused in any other case dictate what laws get to be considered, so if the government has that privilege, we don’t actually have rule of law, do we?

                1. And if the government doesn’t attempt to arrest and convict arsonists and destructive rioters of a certain political persuasion we don’t actually have rule of law, do we?

    2. Many of the views being expressed in these comments are not libertarian.

      1. “LIBERTARIANISM MEANS NEVER HAVING TO FACE CONSEQUENCES!”

        1. Oooo look. An Army of God gladiator! Release the Lions!

          1. Case in point.^^

      2. There isn’t anything libertarian about pretending the law is the way it should be.

        1. For the record, I wasn’t referring to you. I get the argument you have been trying to make here.

          (I did ask you to clarify something above, which you may not have seen because your didn’t reply.$

      3. Good that you finally admit it.

  29. Its called liberating citizens whose rights are being taken away by a State govt that is failing at its most basic obligation…protecting citizens life/liberty/property. Oregon signed up to the Constitution/Bill of Rights and refuses to protect the people. Just like old Abe Lincoln, Trump has every right to send in troops and quell the rebellion…and just like President Ike sending Federal Troops to Little Rock..I”m getting sick of the current head of the Libertarian Party bolshevism..Libertarians most always be for the basic natural rights of the people..even if that means social outcomes that make you feel queasy Or get you uninvited to the woke party elites…

    1. The Federal government’s own statements say that they are not there to defend Oregonians’ basic rights. They claim to be there to protect Federal property.

      1. Federal property eventually includes everything within a hundred miles that may be confiscated, libelled or nationalized via asset-forfeiture looting. This is under 1984 and 1987 laws Biden signed providing forfeiture of alternative assets if the ones targeted turn out to be imaginary.

        1. I’m guessing you brought up that irrelevant point because you think it’s a gotcha because I’m some kind of Biden supporter. I’m not.

  30. I finally went hunting for all the videos I could find of this. There’s not that many, and all the sources are suspect. But from what I’ve seen, here’s a few small observations.

    1) The word POLICE is clearly marked on their clothing. That said, it would not be difficult to fake this, so there’s something to be said for clearer identification. Why do they need to wear camo gear anyway? It seems counterproductive from a sheer tactical standpoint.

    2) The videos are clearly edited at a certain point. CPB issued a statement that suspects were taken away to be questioned at a separate location where they were read their rights.

    This creates an issue-even under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act, I believe the government has to tell the person why they being detained and arrested. I didn’t see it in the videos as these agents are being especially taciturn, but you always ask the question “what happened before the video started” when you see these.

    3) All of the weapons seem like paintball guns. I’d be surprised if there’s no live ammunition anywhere, but it all looks like pure crowd-control gear.

    4) They’re doing a remarkable job of not getting engaged or distracted by the crowd, even when the crowd is clearly throwing stuff at them.

  31. I’m stocked up on popcorn for some more videos of murdering Republican mystical prohibitionist fanatics battling murdering Democrat communist prohibitionist fanatics. Bring ’em on!

  32. Meh oral all posturing. The protestors don’t really think the governement should be overthrown or respected by the government or they’d be out there with guns… They just want video of police looking bad to enhance leftist voting come November

    Trump doesn’t really care about the monuments or he’d be in other areas too, he just wants to look like he’s trying to curtail antifa.

    And the Portland authorities don’t really want to stop the feds, because this will make them look like victims of the big bad cheeto in a super liberal area. If they really wanted to do something, they could start charging federal agents with deprivation of rights, but they won’t.

  33. uptil I saw the bank draft four $4331, I accept that my neighbours mother was actualy taking home money in their spare time at there computar..AZs there great aunt haz done this 4 only about ten months and resantly took care of the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Mazda.

    you can try this out…………………Click For Full Details.

  34. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte….Read more

  35. //lacking any identifying insignia//
    you mean besides the giant POLICE label across their chests?

    1. Yes, because anyone can put “POLICE” on their chest. The guy who shot all those people in Canada a couple months back, for example. The point of identifying marks is so people have a way of verifying their authority and so if a policeman does something wrong, people know who to demand be held accountable.

      1. It’s amazing that you have to explain this.

        1. And the point of police is to protect life and property. It’s amazing that you still don’t understand this.

          1. What does that have to do with whether they wear identifying insignia while doing it?

            1. You mean the identifying marks that say, oh, POLICE in big, bold, yellow letters? Those identifying marks? Or perhaps you think that while “anyone can put ‘POLICE’ on their chest” somehow there’s a 4th law of thermodynamics that prohibits anyone from putting a name or a badge number on their chest. And yes, this is the point where you try to be pedantic (because that’s really all you’ve got left) and claim that YOU didn’t say that, darthhusker did, but you very clearly endorsed it.

              Truly galaxy brain logic.

  36. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get starte HERE? learn More

  37. Donald Trump at yesterday’s Arizona telephone town hall, warning of undesirable types moving into your neighborhood if Biden is elected: “They’re going to bring people, eliminate single-family zoning, they want to eliminate single family zoning, bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down.”

    Who is this “who knows” he speaks of?

    1. Hint: He’s not speaking in code about grandmas moving into all those granny units.

      1. I assume he’s talking about violent criminals, deadbeats, and/or communists.
        But, by your own logic, he explicitly says “who knows?” so you can’t draw any conclusions or impressions.
        You stating that he’s not talking about grandma is a violation of your stated “principles”

        1. He was being coy, so he cannot be pinned down on exactly what he meant. (A technique he uses a lot.)

          Any American adult of intelligence of his age knows that he is speaking in the pattern of language commonly used to speak about black people, Jews, and other undesirables moving into the neighborhood. There is no way he cannot know he is using those same patterns of speech.

          1. If you know what a dog whistle sounds like, that means you’re a dog.

          2. If you hear “blacks and jews” when someone speaks of undesirables, you’re the bigot.

          3. He I was being coy, so heI cannot be pinned down on exactly what he meant. (A technique he usesI use a lot.)

            FTFY

          4. And yet not a single utterance of the words “black” or “Jews” but you just KNOW. Of course it’s completely unfair to characterize BLM as a Marxist organization even when their founders are actually recorded admitting as such.

            Maxwell’s Demon ain’t got nothing on your selectivity to facts.

          5. black people, Jews, and other undesirables moving into the neighborhood.

            Yea people are constantly fretting about what the resale value will be after the … checks quote … LOL … the Jews move in.

        2. Which of my principles is it violating to say he is not taking about grandmas?

            1. So, you have no answer.

              1. Ok, just the first one that pops to mind: “just because one chants black lives matter and participates in their organized protests doesn’t mean one is part of BLM or supports them”

                1. I was not judging Trump’s word because of something someone else said. I was looking at his words, uttered by him.

                  1. Hmm, and yet all you have is “code words.” Your mind reading powers are amazing. You should try learning English next.

          1. You mean aside from your whitewashing of BLM?

            1. So, you have no answer.

              1. So you can’t actually read.

    2. Putting rental units in the back yards of single family housing in the suburbs brings in renters–who tend to be younger, poorer, and commit property crimes at higher rates than homeowners. People move to the suburbs to escape the residents of high density housing for that reason, and the bills in California that have been championed by environmentalists as a solution to the high cost of housing have provoked backlashes all over suburban California for precisely that reason.

      Housing values fall when a bedroom community goes from being a neighborhood for single family homeowners and turns into rental housing because no one wants to live there anymore among all the renters.

      I’ve seen neighborhoods flood into a city council meeting to oppose a development with nicer and larger lower density homes per acre than the developments that surround it–just because they were being offered for rent rather than for sale.

      Because you and the press are obsessed with race doesn’t mean President Trump or anyone has the same problem. After all, there’s no reason to think that black people and Latinos living in single family housing developments want their neighbors building rental units in their backyards and leasing them out to people on Craig’s List either. Why would they feel differently about environmentalists coming in to destroy their property values?

      Incidentally, I maintain that it should be illegal for the government to come in and impose itself on contractual arrangements around HOA’s, etc. The reason people pay a premium to live in a development with all those CC&Rs is because they want them. Why does the government have the right to come in and arbitrarily declare that your neighbors’ contractual obligations are suddenly null and void?

      1. The history of America could be told from a perspective of people denied access to certain neighborhoods because of their race. And the history of Trump cannot be told without referencing his personal involvement in the matter. He’s not racist because he didn’t say nigger (on camera), I suppose. He just systematically shat on brown people his entire career and won the presidency promising to put a wall around them.

        1. So you’ve got nothing. Again. Funny how all of those deeply blue cities can never seem to fix their systemic racism and inequality. It’s almost as if they need it to maintain a serf class that will vote the way they’re told regardless of how badly the system created by their leaders treats them.

          1. Why don’t you fix the problems in Methville Kentucky or wherever you think is such a paradise. No, Democrats have not solved every problem black people have. Thanks for letting us know. Not all of us can pay as much attention to the issue as you do, I’m sure.

            1. These are LITERALLY the problems you’re talking about. All of that “systemic racism” is worst in your blue cities. All of that inequality is by far the worst in your blue enclaves. So spare us the bullshit that you really care about those problems because you support the very pols that have only made them worse.

              1. Cities are blue in general. Rural areas less so. However there is a lot of inequality in poor red states where lots of black people live, including rural areas. Inequality is not limited to areas which vote democratic.

        2. Does it surprise you that he is doing it again?

      2. So, by “bringing who knows into your suburbs” he was probably just referring to younger people. Got it.

        1. Yeah, when he was talking about taking away the single family zoning, he was talking about them changing the zoning so that people can build rental units in their backyards and garages–like the laws the environmentalists pushed in California. And if you’re projecting something on that, that’s about what’s in your head. And if you can’t understand why people who aren’t racist don’t want their homes devalued by having progressives void their CC&Rs in the name of global warming and turning their ownership community into a bunch of rental units, then what’s in your head is dog-shit.

          1. Yes all those home values in the gutter in places progressives live like dirty San Francisco.

            Now you’re just pretending to be naive. Everything right wingers care about is about race, and that goes a million times more when it comes to their neighborhoods where their children live.

            1. Everything right wingers care about is about race

              Funny, you, Esmereldshit, and chemjeff have been the only ones in these threads who have even mentioned black people. At all.

              If I type out “nigger,” does that mean I get a membership card in your guys’ Obsessed With Black People Club? Or do I need to live in 85% white liberal places like Boulder, Seattle, or Portland first?

            2. Funny how you’re the ones always bringing it up, especially when you want to keep certain “undesirables” out of your schools. That’s when you have to invent things like “poor personality” to first keep the Jew quota down and now Asians.

              The party of Robert Byrd and Jim Crow never changed. They just learned the best propaganda tricks from other left wing totalitarian states.

            3. “Everything right wingers care about is about race”

              —-Tony

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

            4. “Everything right wingers care about is about race, and that goes a million times more when it comes to their neighborhoods where their children live.”

              Tony’s confessions are great

  38. The question the article is pointing to is this:

    Which is more to be feared (for a lover of Liberty) – the State or the Mob?

    1. Whatever it is, it will be the opposite after November.

  39. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… MORE AND MORE EARNING DAILY BY JUST FOLLOW THESE STEPS, I am a student and i work daily on this site and earn money..HERE══════►►Show Full Details Here 

  40. The Federal Government should not be involved and Mayor Ted Wheeler and city officials not attempting to restore order should be removed from office.

    1. Disagree.

      I agree that CHAZ should be up to State and local officials to clean up but rioters and arsonists inciting violence and trying to burn down federal courthouses should be met by Federal officers/troops (whether said federal properties should be owned/owed is a different question). There certainly should be a narrow limit as to how far and wide said officer/troops can pursue any rioters, but if 49% of Oregonians didn’t vote for Ted and 100% of Oregonians and Americans paid for a courthouse that Ted is effectively turning over to (private?) revolutionaries, the FedGov has an obligation.

      Moreover, exactly how much property does the FedGov cede to such action? If they seized the whole city by force, including places like Amazon’s HQ, does the FedGov just sit around and wait? What if there’s evidence that the majority composition of the force in question is externally organized? We wouldn’t want the Klan seizing MLK monuments across any/all state lines any more than we would want Chinese troops seizing federal properties.

      1. We wouldn’t want the Klan seizing MLK monuments across any/all state lines any more than we would want Chinese troops seizing federal properties.

        That is, whether the local Mayor/Governor approved or not.

  41. Those poor protestors.

  42. This video (despite saying they’re kidnapping people and showing literally no one being kidnapped) shows an object thrown at a moving van full of federal agents as it pulls away from the curb/through the intersection. There is zero reason said van can’t turn around, grab whomever threw the object, Mirandize him, and throw him into a jail cell without having to explain anything to anyone.

    If it were a van full of militiamen who got out and beat the shit out of whomever threw the object, the video would be exculpatory evidence.

  43. I fully support deploying whatever federal firepower is needed to put every last one of these domestic terrorists in the ground. These protests are anything but peaceful. Arson, violent assault, and even murder are par for course since Antifa and BLM have hijacked the peaceful protests. Peaceful, orderly protest is one thing. Looting, arson, felonious assault, vandalism, blocking streets, highways, and freeways is criminal and should be dealt with accordingly. I say crush these self-entitled, delusional MARXIST USEFUL IDIOTS by any means necessary.

  44. Our President is doing the job all these worthless George Soros bought and paid for Democrat mayors, prosecutors, and judges should have done from the very start. In fact, I’ll go a step further. Put their sorry, worthless, traitorous, un-american butts in prison too for malfeasance in public office as well as giving aid and comfort to domestic terrorists.

Please to post comments