Okay, it’s time for the U.S. Gub’mint to do something about Ammon Bundy and his gang of armed thugs, currently occupying the Malheur Wildlife refuge in Oregon in solidarity with two fellow thugs convicted of arson. As the New York Times reports, these gun-toting, Jesus-loving vandals took a Wildcat excavator and ripped out barbed-wire fencing separating the refuge from private land, allowing other thugs to graze their cows on the reserve:
On Monday, the protesters drove out to a snowy expanse miles from the refuge’s headquarters, bringing along the excavator. They approached a fence they said divided private and public land, and cut a space about 80 feet long, a move they said would allow the Puckett family to graze its cattle at the refuge.
“I feel like this is the first step of many in restoring ranchers’ rights,” Mr. Bundy said.
I’m still amazed that the authorities have done nothing to prevent this criminal trespass on a famous bird refuge. They stand by while the Ammon Gang gets brought food, and while their followers intimidate authorities by trailing them in the area.
What with this vandalism, which now opens the reserve to depredation by Bos taurus, it’s time for the authorities to stop sitting on their hands and do something. If they don’t want to go in with tear gas, which could trigger a gun battle, they can block the roads and cut off power and water. That land is your land, that land is my land, and we don’t have to put up with these morons taking it over for their personal use.
Update to the story, via TPM, the Pucketts do NOT support Bundy, and in fact have repaired the fence damage:
Tim Puckett, a rancher whose land runs adjacent to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, told The Oregonian Wednesday he’s never spoken to Bundy, and his ranch hands have already fixed the fence.
“I am very upset,” Puckett told the paper. “They didn’t have my permission to do anything.”
I fail at linking 🙁
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tim-puckett-bundy-militia-oregon
All kudos to the Pucketts for common sense. It’s what I would have hoped.
cr
…and…
“Bundy claimed Monday he had permission from the rancher’s family to destroy the fence,…”
But, he lied.
Let’s form a posse and ride them bushwhackers outa the county.
Amen!🐮s be gone.
Ruby Ridge and Waco pale in comparison to the kind of outrages committed every day by police in this country.
They were played to the hilt by Republican spin meisters, who knew that Democrats have no backbone to stand on their principles. And here we see that fear continue.
Love to see Bernie be the Stern Father figure and be tough on these folks and the political opportunists who make hay out of this.
He’d probably double his standing with uncommitted Republicans.
We may be at a tipping point. Obama needs to reassert the rule of law. The first step would be, in effect, a siege. The Bundy gang needs to be cut off from the outside world. They would be denied communication, food, water, heat, electricity, etc. I think this would work. If Bundy and his dupes were to resort to violence, they would fire the first shot. The main risk to the government would be that other right-wing militias and individual crazies might get violent. I think it is a risk that has to be taken. Politically, I think strong action would help Obama. All the people sympathetic to Bundy hate Obama already. Strength, rather than weakness, would help Obama politically.
“Strength, rather than weakness, would help Obama politically.”
More. and more lately I think strength is something Obama is incapable of. He’s incapable of even controlling his emotions while making a speech.
And you could Mike, after what the POTUS has seen and experienced over the last few years? Give it a go then. bin Laden likely thought Obama as weak…
“And you could Mike, after what the POTUS has seen and experienced over the last few years?”
If he can’t control his feelings long enough to get through a speech he has no business being POTUS. To be completely honest though I suspect it was intentional. I’m not sure which is worse.
At the risk of violating the ROOLZ, I do think mr. paps is an idiot…
Another person with his lips firmly planted on Obama’s @ss. And one who’s disrespect for the roolz has left no doubt he’s an idiot.
Are you so sure you read da Roolz before you wrote that?
I see no roolz about responding to insults from idiots.
You’d prefer John McCains rendition of “Bomb, Bomb, Iran?”
ah, so vacantly staring off into space is best when a tragedy occurs.
“ah, so vacantly staring off into space is best when a tragedy occurs.”
It’s not like he’d just gotten word of the tragedy during the speech.
Ah, so emotional impact is only to be felt once. It also seems that you are arguing that if one has emotions, one should have them right away. So not staring vacantly into space once one immediately hears of such things isn’t a good thing either?
“Ah, so emotional impact is only to be felt once. It also seems that you are arguing that if one has emotions, one should have them right away.”
No, I’m arguing that my decades of experience in a political family, and my knowledge of politicians tell me Obama either has very little control of his emotions, or was crying on cue. You’re free to disagree, and I’m free to think you’re wrong.
That is quite true, you can claim “Decades of experience” tell you the truth and I can point out that you have no evidence of your claims at all. If one has a few tears flow, it’s quite hilarious to watch you insist that Obama is somehow out of control.
“I can point out that you have no evidence of your claims at all. If one has a few tears flow, it’s quite hilarious to watch you insist that Obama is somehow out of control.”
I never claimed to have any evidence. My opinion is born of the fact that I am able to control my emotions, and that almost every politician I know (the successful ones at least) are able to do so. If on the other hand you are unable to control yours you’d likely have a different opinion.
Thanks for admitting you have no evidence and have decided that if someone sheds a few tears they somehow can’t control their emotions and that your personal experience is the rule we should measure everyone by.
I am quite good at controlling my emotions. I have no need to declare that anyone who sheds a few tears can’t.
“your personal experience is the rule we should measure everyone by.”
Lacking any significant evidence to the contrary, my personal experience is what I use to judge people by, I’ve never suggested you should use my personal experience, you should use yours, which you clearly are.
mmm-hmmmm. “If he can’t control his feelings long enough to get through a speech he has no business being POTUS. To be completely honest though I suspect it was intentional. I’m not sure which is worse.”
quite a thing to say based on opinion, baseless claims and everything. Oh well, happily your opinion has done a great job of showing what it’s worth.
Want a little cheese with that?
Nah, I have all I need from your comments. 🙂
Were Obama’s tears real or forced? That’s what we look for in a president now? Really?
“Were Obama’s tears real or forced? That’s what we look for in a president now?”
I never said they were forced, nor did I say that’s what anyone should look for in a president. It truly amazes me how worked up people have gotten over this. And we wonder why people would label a critic of Islam as a racist/bigot.
This is a common symptom, and great example, of Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS). Any action taken by Obama can be interpreted as a weakness, no matter how contradictory the explanations may be.
Hmm and I thought ODS stood for Obama Defensive Syndrome, where any opinion of Obama that isn’t positive must be argued against.
I think Obama’s description has been the opposite, the Spock of speakers.
Besides, showing emotion from time to time isn’t weakness in all cultures. Here it would be a sign of strength, while on the other hand the boisterous and expressive persona of the US archetype is seen as signs of weakness.
Warmly agree that the macho posturing of so many male American politicians comes across to this European who has lived for forty years in East Asia as a very strong sign of weakness. I am sorry to see Mike Paps, whose comments I have in the past appreciated, taking this attitude to Obama’s few tears.
And also warmly agree that the Bundy gang need to be got out of that wild-life refuge they are despoiling as soon as possible. In addition to trying to destroy the refuge, they are purposely trying to destroy the authority of the government. David Neiwert is worth reading on the danger posed by these ‘militias’, whose numbers have ben growing by leaps and bounds.
You must really despise John Boehner, he cries when he sees bald eagles and the American flag.
It’s interesting that Obama can’t win either way with you. If he can’t control his emotions he’s weak. If he can control his emotions, you think that may be worse.
Heads he loses, tails he loses.
But lets look at your core assertion. According to you Obama was unable to control his emotions. Was he unable to finish his speech? Did he fall down onto the floor and sob uncontrollably? Did the secret service have to take him away? Was Obama having a crying jag? No, no, and no.
He did finish his speech. He appeared to be in control. Is laughing allowed in a president? I think he did that too at other times during other speeches. A president can laugh but not shed a tear or two? What other emotions are presidents and politicians not allowed to show?
I disagree with you on several points. Showing tears does not denote loss of control. Perhaps your just culturally trained to that belief. Nor does it imply manipulation or nefarious purpose as you seem to imply. It shows he’s human and he has empathy, even after numerous years in high office. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Not at all. Nor is it a binary choice, loss of control or a ploy. It can simply be a human communicating.
You also seem to imply that having a political family gives you some sort of expertise over those who do not have a political family on the determination of if tears are a sign of loss of control. Is your view on tears backed by scientific papers, or by experts on human physiology or psychology?
How many of your political family have been a two term president of the United States? Perhaps they should be looking to Obama for pointers.
“You also seem to imply that having a political family gives you some sort of expertise over those who do not have a political family on the determination of if tears are a sign of loss of control. Is your view on tears backed by scientific papers, or by experts on human physiology or psychology?”
And the credentials that make your opinion more valid than mine are? W’ll have to agree to disagree, if you can manage without rupturing something. :p
His opinion, in this case, is reasonable, yours is not reasonable.
It’s absurd to think that, just because somebody sheds a tear when talking about a tragic senseless waste of lives, they are weak.
“It’s absurd to think that, just because somebody sheds a tear when talking about a tragic senseless waste of lives, they are weak.”
I never meant that, and I think you know it. I meant if you can’t control your emotion while making a speech on national TV you’re weak. Now if you think being unable to do so isn’t a weakness we have a different definition of the word.
I wanted to add I’m unsurprised that someone who has gotten as emotional over my opinion as you have would assume Obama honestly just lost it.
I don’t think dealing with such a band of thugs is in the sphere of action of the US President (whoever he is currently), UNLESS they have a broad base of supporters. Do you think this is the case?
The Federal Government has jurisdiction over Federal lands.
So? The federal government has jurisdiction over a lot of things that the president should not be involved with. Recently a bank was robbed near me and I’m sure the FBI was involved, at least peripherally, because bank robbery is a federal offense. I’m sure though, that Obama was not notified. Mayamarkov’s point, I think, is that, so far, this is below the level of what should be on the president’s radar.
Yes. And I think it would benefit the thugs. What an advertisement, and for free!
I do like that law enforcement is more or less ignoring them. Pretty soon the media will get bored.
Once attention drifts away they will likely be tempted to do something to get it back. I can hardly wait.
The local bank robbery isn’t in the national news, part of the national political discussion, while this action is. This isn’t an isolated incident, this fight has been going on for decades (I lived most of my adult life in the mountain west of the US; and I was very active in conservation).
Since the Pres. is ultimately in charge of the Feds., he’s involved whether he likes it or not. The teabaggers are watching him. So are the Democrats, conservationists, gun nuts, etc.
Given the circumstances, not too many local managers (read: zero) are going to take any potentially politically hot-button actions without clearance from above. (I used to work for a Federal Agency; CYA is a very prominent part of the culture.) So any proposed action will be run up the chain of command.
I’m happy he’s not giving them any free advertising.
I think the media will get bored pretty soon. Or the idiots will feel the need to do more outrageous things than they already have to keep the attention on them. Just waiting may be the best possible option at the moment.
So, the current US President is…?
The current POTUS’ DOJ and Homeland Security can and should deal with this deluded fools now. Time’s up.
Even the Bundys firing the first shot would be a disaster – you’d get debates over the matter for years, etc.
When I first heard of a bunch of rednecks with illusions of grandeur taking over a wildlife refuge I assumed these guys actually knew how to survive in the wilderness in winter. You know, knew how to hunt and clean carcasses for food, how and where to obtain clean drinking water, see to their other nutritional needs, brought enough socks and batteries to last through their planned stay, and so on. Instead they beg for food and socks on Facebook. And get mad when people send them condoms and coloring books.
Condoms and coloring books. Love it!
cr
Great idea, those condoms. Don’t want any of these yahoos reproducing.
My initial thought was that the intimate relations which would be happening wouldn’t be of a reproductive nature anyway, but that sending condoms was still sweet and thoughtful of Buzzfeed and Jezebel since intimacy can be more fun when there’s less clean up afterwards.
What? Oh, that is very appropriately cruel. Twist the knife, why don’t cha?
How about … some really nice completely vegan breakfast cardboard. Or … does someone produce super-strong tin cans of $food$ which need a special opener. Which doesn’t get sent.
I take it that the postal service are still required to deliver mail – as long as it’s not dangerous.
Come to think of it, the poor bunnies must be under a lot of stress. Send them some hash! (And I don’t mean the corned-beef variety!)
And, is there anything to prevent the military using the ranger’s centre to practice dropping “flash-bang” type training weapons. At random times, day and night. They’ve got artillery, and people who need training. (Most artillery training grounds are pretty good for wildlife. Something to do with the absence of hoomins.)
Look, those vegan rebels need to eat too! PETA was just being amazing and thoughtful by bringing them animal product free breakfast cardboard!
Ah, the delicate pleasures of malice aforethought.
Send ’em consignments of quiche. After three days they’ll be throwing away their guns, swapping their frontiersman gear and camo jackets for beads and kaftans, singing ‘we shall overcome’ and offering the Feds bunches of wildflowers.
Never underestimate the power of food.
cr
“Let them eat quiche!”
Oh, Marie, you’re such a bitch!
Should that be ‘biche’?
cr
Yeah, that dissapointed me, too! Even *I* could survive in the wilderness like that.
The illusion of Robin Hood is strong with Ammon. I think there are huge numbers of people who privately support what he is doing, though extremely few would ever want what he wants or do what he does.
The charade is a paradox of discomfort for all involved. The best outcome is attrition, dissolution, and unrememberance.
Let me fix that: Illusions are strong with Ammon.
“Huge numbers?” I live in Oregon and I’m not seeing or hearing any of that. And the longer this little bit of sedition goes on, the more their erstwhile support shrinks.
I meant Republicans with guns, and there is a non-negligible number of those.
This is what happens sometimes when you become pacifist to idiots. Give them an inch and then what? Send in the military and do what needs to be done. Should have done it days ago.
Yes, give them 5 or 10 minutes to throw down those peaceful guns and come out with your hands up.
Go in with some heavy equipment and do what Randy posted as the Bundy’s are professional moochers compromising this country big time.
Starving them out and cutting off the electricity and water is another approach as well.
My post-Christian self is staggered that these guys are singing “Amazing Grace”.
They could just send people out to rebuild the fence — backed up with a company of soldiers, standing watching over them, armed.
Agree 100%.
I totally agree. Time to get these land grabbing thugs & squatters out of there. Biding our time isn’t going to work. These are OUR lands, not theirs to squat on & ravish.
There are a certain group of Republicans in Congress that I’m sure are quietly on the side of the thugs. These are the legislators that think the federal lands and parks ought to be sold off to the highest bidders – the mining companies, loggers, frackers and drillers etc. They would destroy our beautiful parks and federal land management areas for a few bucks from their benefactors.
Hey – leave us drillers out of it! We don’t want to buy your land – we just want to lease the mineral rights, and access agreements so we can get to our wellheads.
You might have different laws in the US, but the hassle we had to go through to drill wells in a Site of Special Scientific Interest in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was huge. But productive. 2 months of drilling with drinking water for starters, until we’d cased off the aquifers.
Lets not forget that there can be women and children there: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-militants-keeping-women-and-children-around-at-standoff-despite-threats-to-kill-or-be-killed/ . I do not know why we have not blockaded the roads and cut of the electric, but anything further for the time being is how the Waco TX incident ended.
Yeah, basic cowards.
Completely agree.
I have little expectation that it will accomplish anything, but today, I signed the following petition to the White House: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/thank-you/2181456
If anyone has suggestions as to further political action that I could take, please let me know.
Sorry, should have been this link: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/arrest-ammon-bundy-and-armed-occupiers-malheur-wildlife-refuge
Thanks for that. I did my part and signed it.
They should elect Papa Smurf Cliven Bundy as well. That situation has been festering even longer.
Elect? Or did autocorrect just screw with ‘arrest’?
cr
I suspect that that is because it is an election year. While these guys and their fans aren’t going to support the Democratic nominee, I imagine that the Obama administration is unwilling to risk doing anything that will play into the hands of Republicans. They don’t want to stir them up and do their get-out-the-vote work for them. Unless these guys kill someone or otherwise directly endanger lives, I fully expect this to continue until the election is over.
OTOH, the longer they go, the more crimes they are likely to commit out of boredom, and the longer prison terms they will probably serve once they are done.
I think the chance that these guys will escape prison just went down dramatically with their latest action. I’m happy to watch them pile up states evidence against them on national TV for the time being.
2016 Conservation Poll Finds Support For Public Lands
hat tip Ed Brayton
Let’s step back a few decades. When people were protesting the Vietnam War, occupied federal buildings, destroyed federal property and disrupted business, you guys would be fine with Nixon sending in federal troops to clear them out? Or is the difference that these guys have firearms, even though said firearms are perfectly legal to possess? Would it be okay to forcibly remove the Occupy Wall Street people? The Black Lives Matter folks? No, probably not..in your view. But since you don’t agree with these particular clowns, send in the military, even though they’re causing less harm than any of these other groups that I mentioned.
Either we use force against all protest groups that cause disruption and destruction or we’re tolerant of all of them.
Disagree. You’ve posited a false equivalence. The reasons people are doing things does matter. Don’t even attempt to denigrate protestors against the obscene outrage that was the Vietnam war by comparing them with these idiots.
cr
So, as long as you agree with the protesters, it’s okay? Got it. You do realize the most Americans sided with Nixon in his rough treatment of anti-war protesters? Is it the majority that matters? Are you the sole arbiter of what is a just protest? Or does the 1st Amendment allow equal treatment for both sides? The latter is my view. If you bust heads for one group, you must bust heads for all…or be tolerant.
So, you support the Vietnam war. Got it.
Or is there, in your view, no cause so just that protest is permissible? Or is it that no cause is so stupid and malignant that protests are mischievous?
cr
Protests and civil disobedience emanating from perceived wrongs is very American in my view and necessary for a vibrant and free democracy. My problem here is that when the Right protests and goes too far, the Left is ready to quickly call for the military to get involved to stop those cretin wrongdoers. When the Left goes too far and uses violence and/or destroys property, the police are a bunch of fascists who must be stopped at all costs.
It doesn’t matter if I supported that war, or any war. What matters is that all dissent is treated equally and that our government doesn’t over react to the actions of some citizens, while allowing others to operate with impunity. When you call for restraint against BLM protesters, war protesters, nuclear protesters, etc., but for no restraint against land use protesters, you want the government to choose sides, to allow some protests while halting others…this is a bad idea.
I don’t think you can neatly separate the aim of the protest from the protest itself.
And I don’t have your faith in ‘free speech’ either as an end in itself or as a way to solve problems.
But in any case, it isn’t necessary to get into that.
This bunch have cut a boundary fence with the explicit aim of letting cattle in to damage the reserve. They have also threatened armed resistance to the properly constituted forces of law and order. In both those areas they have stepped over the line and should be brought up sharply.
cr
My preference would be to make a list of those involved, let the protest fizzle, then arrest them one at a time after they return home, prosecute them, fine them and jail them. Going in with tanks gives them attention and credibility. The nature reserve will quickly recover from a couple of cows wandering around for a week or two.
I’m sure that you also, then, prefer to use the military/federal police/swat for any BLM protests that disrupt commerce in any city and especially if the protest results in cars/buildings being set on fire and police shot at, as in Ferguson.
All I want is for both Right and Left to be treated equally, as the Constitution demands. You don’t get to choose which protests are allowed to break the law and which are not.
And if the protest doesn’t fizzle and the cows are still wandering around in several months’ time? How much ongoing damage are the Feds supposed to tolerate?
Disrupting commerce does not require violent response, so long as the protestors are non-violent and allow themselves to be removed peaceably. Not even if they handcuff themselves to the railings.
If people are committing arson or other damage then IMO the police are fully justified in using force to stop it. Equally if they threaten to shoot anybody, the authorities are fully entitled to bring in massively superior weaponry and invite the protestors to fire the first shot.
cr
As a survivor of communism, I disagree that the Vietnam War was an “obscene outrage”. America had signed an alliance treaty with South Vietnam (in 1961) and was obliged to protect her from communist aggression. I have no idea why so many Americans regard the Vietnamese as some weird people who deserve communism because aren’t worthy of democracy and property rights or wouldn’t want them, and any treaty to protect such people should be abandoned at the first moment of convenience.
Well, I understand that many Americans wouldn’t want to fight and die to save some obscure Asians from communism, but I think these considerations mattered before the treaty was signed.
The current situation around Russia is for me a sickening “deja vu”. (I am not old enough to remember the time of the Vietnam War, but you understand what I mean.) The USA signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994 and then did nothing to help Ukraine. Obama refused even to sell arms to the country. Americans and other Westerners are asked in opinion polls: “Would you approve a war to protect Estonia if attacked by Russia” and answer with a massive “No”, of course. I’d suggest that countries stop signing treaties, after nobody cares to keep them anyway.
Only if you think the phrase ‘better dead than Red’ has some validity.
cr
There’s no way to have a war with Russia that’s going to end well for anybody.
Are you kidding?
The difference is that these guys have firearms that they’re threatening to use.
I don’t see that as much of a difference. The protests in Ferguson certainly caused more damage to property and was more threatening to peoples’ lives. Guns, firebombs, rocks, etc. Even the Vietnam protests were pretty violent at times, on both sides.
I think that it must be repeated time and again that, skin pigmentation aside, the Bundy gang with their violent posturing and putting themselves above the law are absolutely like the Ferguson arsonist “protestors”. I guess, neither group will enjoy being compared to the other.
Agreed.
cr
Your binary choice – use force against all or be tolerant of all – is false. The response to a protest will obviously depend on the particulars of the protest.
Of course. I’m only speaking of when protesters cross some imaginary line and my point is that the Left (most people here) are more tolerant of groups that they have some affinity for, like BLM or anti-war protesters. Whereas, that line is sharp and clear for gun toting right wing loons who are trampling the sacred grounds of a wildlife sanctuary. The law is the law and should be blind in this regard.
In actuality, protests by the Left tend to get more out of hand. More property is destroyed and more police and civilians are injured. In this case, the loons are occupying a deserted building, have torn down a fence and a few cows have entered the refuge. Plus, they’re carrying guns (but haven’t used them). Compare that to Ferguson. If the particulars of the protest are taken into account, then this one is pretty mild.
I generally agree but two things: These guys don’t seem to be protesting, they’re taking. And it’s an armed robbery.
I don’t think it’s okay for anyone to destroy property or harm others to make a point.
Yes, and they will eventually be arrested and prosecuted…at least, they should be.
Step 1: Shoot any cattle illegally grazing on public land. If poachers can do it…
Actually, if the Pucketts have any sense, they won’t have a bar of it.
I suspect the Bundys, having slipped out of the headlines, are just trying to get back in the news again.
cr
I knew a man who had wheat fields and some thugs had the habit of using his fields as pasture for their horses. This stopped when he shot one of the horses. I was sorry for the poor innocent animal.
… whereas for the cattle, it only anticipates their being shipped off to the slaughterhouse by some period of time.
cr
This illustrates the problem (and I don’t know what to say about what to do) with the “wait it out” idea. That is, it will result in more and more damage. These folks serving a jail sentence will not replace ruined land, for example.
Wouldn’t this be a good time to go in and confiscate the Bundys’ cattle, now that their attention has been focused elsewhere?
now, that I like.
Send in Sean Penn with a camera crew.
Yeah, and he could fart in their general direction upon meeting them ( as he apparently did to El Chapo, according to Trevor Noah).
Just shoot any cattle that wander in there. What are they going to do, sue?
The Pucketts could sue the Bundys for any losses, since it was the Bundys deliberate intent to let Puckett cattle onto the reserve thereby exposing them to harm…
I wish…
cr
Someone in charge needs to grow a pair and quickly.
Someone please tell Mr. Bundy that not everyone agrees with him. I do not want cattle grazing on ‘my’ public land!
I’m still trying to imagine the gubmint taking such a hands-free stance if the gun-toters had all been black.
And, I’m trying to imagine the Rebiblicans supporting that gubmintle hands-free stance, were the gun-toters all Muslim.
If they were all women, pictures would probably wind up on the front pages, taunting viewers to wait for Pussy Riot poses.
sub