.
.
.
[Editor’s note: credit for the term “Y’all Qaeda” goes to a friend of a friend of this blog, someone who probably doesn’t even know that this blog exists. Used without permission, so far, but too great not to share.]
An armed gang of white folk have declared war on the federal government and taken over what may be its least desirable building anywhere to spend the winter, as they have pledged to do.
The headquarters of the Malheur Federal Wildlife Refuge, 30 miles south of Burns, Oregon and maybe 150 miles west of Boise, Idaho, was empty at the time of the invasion. That’s because it’s in rural southeastern Oregon in early January and there’s no reason for anyone to be there unless they’re trying to overthrow the government or something.
Overthrowing the government is an ambitious plan, however, and — as they can probably be defeated by turning off electricity, water, and playing progressive rock albums at full volume outside of their compound — it relies on their cause truly catching fire, much like the public lands around the men whose return to jail they are protesting did when they set it on fire. (Their argument was that it was a necessary backfire; the real story seems to be that it was to cover their poaching in the area.) Our concern here is not the righteousness of their cause, however, but: how in the name of Stonewall Jackson do they expect to get away with it? Or, more to the point, why ain’t they already dead?
If they were Occupy, they would be dead. If they were Black Lives Matter, they would be dead. If they were Muslims, they would be dead. Hell, if they were lesbian vegans, they would be dead. What does their profound lack of already deadness say about our society?
It’s simple: we coddle armed white far right-wing loonies. This is in part because they are armed and in part because they are loonies — but it is mostly because they are armed and far right-wing. And the government does indeed fear the carnage that all of those white gun owners could create if they wanted to — that is the actual point of stockpiling more guns than you need to stop a home intruder — which is why the government makes sure that what they will be able to get however many weapons they want (and generally be taken alive when they are caught), African Americans and Latinos will be shot for having toy guns, guns still in boxes on the way to the cashier, suspected guns, suspected desire for guns, the capacity to have a gun, planted guns, hallucinated guns, black wallets, and black cell phones, among other threats to law and order.
Some of the leaders of this brave breaking and entering are the sons of Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who brought scores of armed wackos — who were allowed to point weapons with live ammunition at federal agents and live to brag about it! — to support his ability to continue stealing resources and the trappings of ownership from the public, i.e., you. (That’s what “public land” means — you own a share of it.) And they got away with it. After the wackos threatened President Obama with a seven-layer-cake of hell if he acted against them, and he didn’t, they rewarded him with jeers and allegations that he was too chicken to fight — and pledges that they’d do it again.
And now they have.
Well, Obama is probably too cautious to implement my preferred plan for the site — air bomb the building with honey and wait until the bears wake up from hibernating — so we’re likely to just see more of the same. But there is one thing that we can do. Democrats will do it pretty easily, but our influence with Y’all Qaeda types is limited. This is something on which Republicans will have to take the lead.
Denounce them. Roundly. In no uncertain terms. With the sort of threatening language that they would offer if instead of Cliven Bundy’s sons, this was the faculty of the African-American Studies Department of Portland State University occupying that building. Denounce them so that no more right wingers are going to want to do anything like this again, because they know that even the most conservative field of Republican Presidential candidates in the history of the universe is not going to have their backs if they make war against their own country — our country.
Ted Cruz — Google shows no reports of you saying anything about Malheur in the past 24 hours. Cat got your tongue?
Donald Trump — lots on the Al-Shabazz recruiting video, but nothing from you on Oregon.
Marco Rubio — you’re absent from your job here.
Jeb Bush — there’s a story about you and burning, but it’s about “through your campaign treasury.”
Chris Christie — Mr. Law and Order? Nope — just something about “Refuses To Help Unemployed New Jersey Residents Hold Onto…”
I’ll stop there. (Lindsay Graham and George Pataki? This could have been your moment. You dropped out too soon!)
To be fair, I don’t see quotes from Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders either — but I’ll bet that they’d have a quote if asked, and I’ll bet I know pretty much what it would be. As for the others? Not sure — are you?
If you see any Presidential candidate’s quotes on the topic — ones that would make the sorts of people who are engaged in or approving of this use of force against their own country either comfortable or uncomfortable — put them into comments! We can wait all winter….

And here’s the current news: they really ARE all cowards.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-candidates-stay-quiet-on-oregon-standoff/2016/01/03/b8b9806c-b239-11e5-9388-466021d971de_story.html
“If they were Occupy, they would be dead. If they were Black Lives Matter, they would be dead. If they were Muslims, they would be dead. Hell, if they were lesbian vegans, they would be dead. What does their profound lack of already deadness say about our society?”
It says that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
No, but that was a good try!
But…
http://nypost.com/2016/01/02/myth-of-the-cop-killing-epidemic/
But why WEREN’T the Democrats even asked ? I mean, the WP DOES know there is ALSO a Democratic primary with candidates going on also, right? Shouldn’t good journalistic practice DEMAND a DIVERSE spectrum of response to this important event, for the public’s “right to know” ? OUCH ! Bit my tongue (in cheek) again!
Greg, if I recall correctly, Occupy activists took over MULTIPLE parcels of public space all over the nation, while reports of midnight rapes occurring in the tents could easily have prompted a militarized response. Please share with us precisely how many Occupy activists were killed while squatting on public land, in their protest against the overreach of the Federal government?
No, I am not defending a couple of nut jobs with confederate flag stickers accenting the gun racks on their F-150s, but I am definitely challenging your assumption that this action is remotely “Republican” and as such demands some comment from the GOP candidates.
A couple of whackadoodles who DO NOT represent any organization, much less the views of ALL of any one political party, went off the deep end and took over a non-essential building (Looks like a visitor’s center, maybe? Certainly not a military installation.) They are out in the middle of nowhere, where they seem to be doing very little of anything to bother anyone other than keeping tourists from using the bathroom, and I assume there are few tourists in the area until a spring thaw anyway. So how exactly does this become a defining moment for “The Right” that political leaders are supposed to opine upon a low level crime of blocking access to interpretive displays on flora and fauna?
I suspect the Feds are doing what “hunting widows” do every year. Wait it out, with the sure and certain knowledge that eventually they will run out of beer, toilet paper, and stories of high school football glory, and will find their way out of the woods, covered in whiskers and smelling of fresh caught fish and old BO, with the slight undertone of cheap hookers snuck in under cover of darkness.
Asking Presidential candidates to opine on the actions of a couple wing-nuts with guns and the ability to pry open a government issued lockset is the equivalent of asking candidates for Anaheim office to opine on the demands of Fitzgerald. We recognize there is no org behind them, they are on their own, and they are wearing aluminum foil under those Stetsons. Why would anyone want to comment on actions that defy logic or reason? And why do you automatically align those actions with the GOP?
Think of how different it could have been if ONE Occupy activist had been spotted with a sidearm.
We’d have been kettled — and then we’d have been cooked.
“Why would anyone want to comment on actions that defy logic or reason? And why do you automatically align those actions with the GOP?”
I… I’ve got nothing.
Do you think ANY candidates will ever get asked about this ?
Would you see the answers (or the questions ) in WP, HuffPost, NY Post, or ????
These dudes are silly nut jobs.
Still, they haven’t killed anyone (yet).
So far, the police response has shown wisdom: mostly ignore them. Now, if we could just get our police to show such wisdom and restraint when it’s *not* middle ages white guys brandishing the weapons.
“Middle Ages” white guys. Nice Freudian typo, if it was.
MARCO RUBIO OPPOSES LAWLESSNESS!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/marco-rubio-on-oregon-standoff-you-cant-be-lawless
GOOD GOING, SEN. RUBIO! (Who supported Cliven Bundy’s actions in Nevada.)
Actually I heard Ted Cruz sounding like a grownup about it this morning.
This is a case of prosecutorial overcharge for the purpose of a Federal land grab.
Yes, the Hammonds got bit in the ass by mandatory minimum sentencing.
Doesn’t mean they did nothing wrong. Doesn’t mean occupying a federal building is the proper response.
Tell us, did you support mandatory minimum sentencing back in the day?
In this case, were it not for prosecutorial overcharge, minimum sentencing would not come into play. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Is most certainly IS relevant, because prosecutors overcharge as a simple matter of routine, like the sun rising in the east. For you to suggest that this is somehow unique to this case is absurd.
Prosecutorial overcharge? Ha. Did they rely on the court appointed attorneys or represent themselves?
Worth a listen .. in Congress yesterday.
Additional details- FWIW-
Oh, man — a “here’s why they commit these sorts of crimes” speech.
That ALWAYS works for ethnic minorities when they commit crimes due to government malfeasance and neglect. Nice approach, Rep. Walden!
“……frustration with a government that simply does not listen to its people….” HOW MANY situations in HOW MANY areas does that describe ?
Yeah, pick a town, pick a year.
*Drug Test every one of these nut jobs….bet 86% are hooked on prescription drugs and abusing such. The Feds are cutting off the electricity and gas……and the weather is 26 degrees……..we look forward to their survival skills training.
Even the federal prosecutor who asked for the mandatory minimum conceded that “perhaps the best argument…the defendants have in this case is the proportionality of what they did to what their sentence is.” He admitted that the mismatch was “troubling.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2016/01/07/oregon-rancher-protest-highlights-the-injustice-of-mandatory-minimums/
So you’ve decided that in THIS case you’ll solve the problem that came up regularly in “mandatory-minimum” cases — but not in all of the others. Your selective outrage is silly.
Maybe prior conduct explains some of it. There’s a fair amount of evidence these clowns are recidivist douchebags who routinely put others in danger.
http://wildfiretoday.com/2016/01/05/the-timeline-for-the-oregon-rancher-arsonists/