Phonies occupy BLM building in Oregon

| January 3, 2016 | 211 Comments

Some of our old phony friends are stinking up a Federal Building in Burns, Oregon in protest of the return to jail of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father and son ranchers, accused of setting a forest fire more than a decade ago. The Hammonds are scheduled to report for their incarceration tomorrow. The approximately 300 members of the militia who have showed up for protest are led by the sons of Cliven Bundy, whose ranch was the site of a protest nearly two years ago in Nevada. They’ve occupied a Bureau of Land Management building on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge.

[Ryan Bundy] said many would be willing to fight — and die, if necessary — to defend what they see as constitutionally protected rights for states, counties and individuals to manage local lands.

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

Government sources told The Oregonian/OregonLive that the militia also was planning to occupy a closed wildland fire station near the town of Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management posts crews there during the fire season.

I noticed that a couple of our old phony friends are there, too.

Ryan Payne, one of the leaders from the Bundy stand-off who claimed that he was a Ranger is there. Payne was not a Ranger by any measure of the word, but, I guess militia folks don’t care about veracity.

Ryan Payne

Also, Blaine Cooper, the fellow who ditched his Delayed Entry Program enlistment for the Marine Corps is there. He couldn’t find the time to honor his enlistment in the Marines, but he sure can find the money to wear all of the military finery;

Blaine Cooper

Blaine Cooper1

Are those knee pads, Blaine? What would you need those for? Me, personally, I’d find a warmer hat to wear, although the bush hat is cooler-looking than a pile cap. I can’t shake the feeling that these protests are nothing more than an opportunity for these folks to wear their Ranger Joe purchases in public and to strut around openly carrying their firearms.

Category: Dumbass Bullshit

Comments (211)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Skippy says:

    Well abbé a son of a bitch it’s a Phony/ Turd Reunion with the grand prize of time in the bob wire hotel

    bhwhahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!

  2. IDC SARC says:

    Faaaabulous ensemble!

  3. Old Trooper says:

    I noticed that it’s a “militia”, when it’s a bunch of white guys, but if it were BLM or Occupy, they would just be disenfranchised Americans fighting for equality.

    I don’t know so much about what the problem is, this time, and I don’t really want to know. What I do know is that they are using leftist/prog/commie tactics, that have been so effective in the past. I will say what I say about the leftist/prog/commie types that do this shit; grow up and get a job.

  4. OWB says:

    There IS a point beyond being attention whores, right?

    Maybe not.

  5. Sapper3307 says:

    I wonder if the Loaf Keepers brought their X-Boxes with them. So they can keep on training missions and tactics.

  6. The Other Whitey says:

    They’re being obnoxious little fucks in support of a pair of arsonists? Give me a fucking break! I know for a fact that certain BLM officials are power-tripping dicks, but this is horseshit.

    And they plan on “occupying” a fire station to further support the arsonists, eh? Well, that BLM station is almost certainly closed for the winter by now, so all they’ll really be doing is trespassing, vandalism, and B&E, but still, that they want to go after a firehouse in support of arsonists is very telling. If they wanted to picket the office of the official responsible for the dickish behavior, that’d be one thing, but I’m fairly sure the guys on that engine (most, if not all, of whom are seasonals) were not involved in said dickish behavior.

    This is nothing more than a bunch of assholes trying to make excuses for their assholery. Maybe my background jades my point of view a little, as I really don’t like arsonists, but fuck these morons.

  7. mistythemedic says:

    I rolled my eyes so hard I checked out my own ass.
    Go home, losers, before you get hurt. You aren’t wanted there anyway.

  8. Green Thumb says:

    Extra Losers with a Capitol “E”,

  9. Toasty Coastie says:

    Bet Bernath will be there offering them legal advice lololololol….. I think I just choked lol 😀

  10. Ex-PH2 says:

    Is there going to be a snowball fight?

    I have a toolkit for snowballs and fortress-building.

  11. IDC SARC says:

    Unless there are pics involving tactical split-tails in this militia forthcoming, I’ve pretty much lost interest.

    Somebody wake me when there’s bleeding you can actually hear.

  12. Roh-Dog says:

    So the Fed decided to do an about-face on years of SOP by disallowing the Hammonds to graze cattle on Fed land so they set 130 acres ablaze after an incident with a tractor blocking a fence… Ok. Why, for the love of everything that is holy, does this have to involve firearms? Someone at some point could do something even stupider than what’s currently happening and I don’t want to see it.
    Grow up.

  13. Pat says:

    One thing I don’t understand is according to WAPO the sentence was served but another judge said three years wasn’t long enough so is sending them back for four more?

    Not in support of the phonies, but I’d be a bit peeved if I were the Hammonds, and if I’m reading the article correctly.

    Now off to go fight the mob at the gun show and see what overpriced gear is on the tables. Thanks, Obama.

    • GDContractor says:

      From what I have read, they agreed to a plea deal and agreed to no appeal. They served their time. Then, the government decided to prosecute them again under another law that was designed to punish terrorists. The judge agreed with the prosecution and sentenced them to the min 5 years under the anti-terrorism law.

      Meantime, if they had been stank ass hippies burning their own excrement and letting the fire get out of control, or BLM employees losing control of a fire, we’d be hearing nothing but crickets.

      • Country Singer says:

        It also should be noted that the Hammonds have told this group of miscreants that their “help” is not desired and that they should GTFO. These boneheads don’t even have the support of the “Oath Keepers.” Hell, even Sipsey Street has denounced them.

        Incidentally, it’s also my understanding that the burns were originally permitted, or at least there was some coordination with the powers that be (State of Oregon, etc), but BLM got their panties in a wad when they lost containment and the fires got onto BLM land. Interestingly, at the trial, the BLM expert noted that the fires actually improved conditions on BLM land.

      • Plane Bum says:

        That’s not quite correct. The crime they were convicted of, setting fire to public lands, carries a five year mandatory minimum. Given how destructive wildland fires can be out west, I don’t think that’s an inappropriate sentence, regardless of which particular act of Congress set that minimum.

        However, they whined enough that the trial court gave them a sentence below the statutory minimum, so the prosecutor appealed the sentencing. The Ninth Circuit decided in the prosecutor’s favor and the SCotUS refused to hear the case. So now they go back in the can to serve out the rest of the sentence for the crime they committed.

        Now, the only reason you’ve heard of these particular shitstains is because they have a bunch of poorly washed friends with way too many guns and way too little sense.

    • Casey says:

      NO. The original charge was arson, but they plead to a lesser sentence. The problem is that that law carries a minimum 5-year sentence. Prosecution appealed, 9th court agreed, so they have to serve the full 5 years with credit for time served.

      People are making this too complicated. To paraphrase an earlier commenter, govt types may be dicks, but that doesn’t make the other guy a hero.

  14. r0gu3patri0t says:

    It seems the Oregon tree percenters are stepping way back from Bundy and his lackeys.

  15. streetsweeper says:

    IVAW crybabies supporting these asshats, too?

  16. Fish says:

    According to local media, Ritzheimer is there as well.

  17. Green Thumb says:

    Ryan Payne = Two-hole Ranger

  18. Club Manager says:

    I’ve been to Burns a couple of times, both the town and the group deserve each other. With any luck they will stay there.

  19. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Maybe that group needs to adopt the codename (Losers ‘R’ Us”? I don’t know what makes some people that stupid, but IT WORKS!! All they’re missing in some fake SNCO leadership, maybe from a phony pilot/CPO and the type of Ranger presence that can only be delivered by “Bunny-Fart” Dalton Coldiron and *SLUUUURRP!*41! To them I say “Today I saw some pieces of shit on the ground and they reminded me of YOU”

  20. Ex-PH2 says:

    Let’s all hope that this comes to nothing and the media actually get bored with it and go away within a few days.

    If there were no TV trucks there, no SVs or ATWhrs or ‘militia’ would show up or stick around. It’s all hooey, and we know it. But then, we live in the real world.

  21. Jonn Lilyea says:

    The Feds think that the Hammonds set those fires to cover up their poaching.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      That makes more sense.

    • Skippy says:

      From what I’ve read and seen it’s pretty posable. Here we go with all the wannabe SF/ ranger / seal PX high speeds Lol……

    • Flagwaver says:

      The Feds also want the Hammond’s land because it contains gold and other rare minerals. This is the latest thing they’ve used to try and get it. Not to say they didn’t set the fire, but last time I checked that wasn’t terrorism related.

      • Hondo says:

        Methinks you need to read the decision I posted above, Flag. The Hammonds were not convicted of terrorism; they were convicted of arson of Federal property.

        • Flagwaver says:

          Actually, the plea deal was something along the lines of damaging federal property. The new 5 year sentence doesn’t even acknowledge the three they already served, though.

          • Hondo says:

            Negative, and negative. The Hammond’s “plea deal” was for no further prosecution on charges where the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The jury had already convicted them on one count of arson of Federal property – specifically, 18 USC 844(f)(1) – at the time of the deal; the jury had been sent back to continue deliberations by the trial judge. The deal allowed the jury to quit deliberating on other charges and guaranteed the Hammonds no retrial on those other charges. In exchange for no retrial, the Hammonds – but NOT the Federal government – waived their right to appeal their conviction.

            The judge – on his last day on the bench- then chose to disregard Federal law which specified a 5-year mandatory minimum for the crime (which the prosecution had asked him to impose) and gave the two sentences shorter than the mandatory minimum for the crime. That was the basis of the Federal prosecutor’s appeal to the 9th Circuit, which sided with the prosecutor and ruled that the Hammonds must serve the minimum sentence specified under Federal law for the crime for which the original jury had convicted them – arson of Federal property.

            The Hammonds thereafter further appealed the case to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS declined to hear the case, endorsing the 9th Circuit’s decision ordering the Hammonds to serve the REMAINDER of the mandatory minimum (5 years) for arson of Federal property. They’ll be receiving full credit for time served previously.

            You might want to quit listening to those pandering misinformation and read the applicable court docs yourself, Flag. You strike me as smart enough to do exactly that, but for some reason in this case you apparently have not bothered to do so.

  22. Matthew Wilbanks says:

    Got to correct a few mistakes above. The Hammonds are not brothers, they are father and son. Second, the peaceful rally had approximately 300 attendees but estimates are that Ammon Bundy’s group only has about 150. He tried to get the rest of our groups to go along with him but we declined because it was a foolhardy plan. We already knew of his association with the two “phonies” you mentioned above, and they are exactly that. He did not discuss or clear any of his plans with Oregon III% or Idaho III%. Finally, and I hate to defend Blaine Cooper because he is a trouble maker, but there is nothing illegal, immoral or dishonorable about leaving the Delayed Entry Program. When you are in DEP you have not yet signed a contract and have no legal obligation to actually join. Just a small point but important nonetheless.

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      There’s a moral obligation to honor your promise, though. I think I remember taking the oath of enlistment when I signed up for my 17 days on DEP, a million years ago.

      • Matthew Wilbanks says:

        DEP is not a “promise” though. It’s more like a letter of intent for a college. It holds no legal authority. I was in DEP for the Navy, backed out and joined the Air Force instead. The recruiters tried to paint the same picture of “not honoring your promise” but it was just nonsense because they didn’t want to lose the stats.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Tell me something, Matthew. I signed up twice for the Navy. I didn’t back out of it. It’s a contract, which is an agreement to do something. So how come I could handle the Navy twice and you went off to the golf club?

          (No offense meant to my zoomie friends who met THEIR obligation.)

        • Hondo says:

          Horsecrap. A DEP enlistee signs a DD Form 4 on entry into the program. That form obligates the individual concerned to serve in the military; starts the clock on the military service obligation; and for DEP enlistees, in fact inducts them into the Reserve Component of the service concerned. You might want to read para 8 of that form; I’ve posted a link below to the current edition.

          The fact that Uncle Sam routinely chooses to release people in the DEP who fail to report for active duty vice pursuing them in court or ordering them to active duty is irrelevant. The fact remains that such individuals voluntarily made a binding legal commitment to serve – and then welched on the deal.

    • Green Thumb says:

      “there is nothing illegal, immoral or dishonorable ”

      It has a lot to do with character, leadership and integrity. You step forward, you move forward.

      You give a man your word, you follow through.

      You put your name on the dotted line, you honor your commitment.

      Maybe you guys should redefine what the term “oath” means.

      • Matthew Wilbanks says:

        You obviously have no idea how DEP actually works. If it was a moral obligation, they would have you sign an actual enlistment contract, but they don’t and they know it’s not the same thing. DEP is not “giving your word”, it’s saying “I think I want to join the Navy” not “I promise to join the Navy”. The promise is when you sign the actual enlistment contract at MEPS. We don’t need to redefine what “oath” means because DEP isn’t one.

        • Green Thumb says:

          Your right, I have no clue. None whatsoever.

          The term used in college football recruiting for what you are explaining is “grey shirting”. Pack it full and maybe a few make the bar and pan out. Depends on the completion and needs of the service. Not to mention character. Those that do not usually finagle their way into another branch eventually.

          Anyway, those dudes you refer to that “shop around” are usually the ones that slip off into the tree line at 30th AG. You know, the ones you see an day or two later wearing shower shoes and a yellow vest? You know any of those dudes?

          Guess a lot of us came from a different cut of meat.

          Anyway, most of us that stepped up followed through.

          Just an observation.

        • Hondo says:

          Wilbanks: you might want to work on your reading comprehension, fella. Specifically, you might want to read (and if necessary, have someone explain to you the meaning of) para 8 of the following, which is signed by people who enlist in the military – including those who enlist under the DEP.

          In short: you’re under formal military obligation while in the DEP, and are technically a member of the military. The fact that Uncle Sam routinely releases people who change their mind before they report for active duty vice involuntarily ordering them to active duty in no way changes the fact that the individual has legally obligated themselves to serve in the military when they sign up for the DEP.

          Reading is fundamental, amigo. You might want to sign up for a course to improve your skills in that area.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Matthew, take a hint. Don’t mess with Green Thumb. You’re biting off more than you can chew.

          • Sapper3307 says:

            I want read it when Lars and Matthew go at it. Lars come out and play!

          • Jarhead says:

            Matthew Gottaclue…..Ex-PH2 is being polite and tactful. What she really means is, “Listen you pious know-it-all; you may be a little light in the loafers, but Green is one Thumb you don’t want to suck. I take it DEPKeepers is unlikely to ever be the new name of your group???????

        • Green Thumb says:

          I guess the question is begging to be asked: Matthew, did you see the “yellow footprints” and run like hell?

          It would explain a lot.

        • Grunt says:

          I guess the DoD doesn’t have a clue, either….

          DD 4/1, B.(Agreements), para. 8:
          “8. I am enlisting/reenlisting in the United States (list branch of service)____ this date for 8 years and 00 weeks beginning in pay grade __________
          The additional details of my enlistment/reenlistment are in Section C and Annex(es)___”

          I understand that I will be ordered to active duty as a Reservist unless I report to the place shown in item 4
          above by (list date YYYYMMDD)for enlistment in the Regular component of the United
          States (list branch of service) ___ for not less than __ years and
          __ weeks. My enlistment in the DEP is in a nonpay status. I understand my period of time in the DEP is NOT creditable for pay purposes upon entry into a pay status. However, I also understand that this time is
          counted toward fulfillment of my military service obligation or commitment. I must maintain my current qualifications and keep my recruiter informed of any changes in my physical or dependency status, moral
          qualifications, and mailing address.”

          Ooh, and what’s that on DD 4/2, sec E. para. 15??
          I,______________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
          faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
          So help me God.”

          Sounds like you’re the one that needs some education on what an oath really is. Assuming that you actually believe in anything more important than your own self-inflated sense of fucking worth.

          “Oathkeeper” my ass.

    • Just An Old Dog says:

      Blaine Cooper callsign “Cockmole-1” has made numerous claims to be a Marine Veteran, including at a town hall meeting on You Tube where he blasts John McCain.

    • Silentium Est Aureum says:

      Actually, DEP IS a contract. You enlist in the reserves with a promise to report to active duty on your ship date.

      The fact he bitched out before he even shipped tells me all I need to know about this clown.

  23. Neb Selim says:

    It never ceases to amaze me!

    At least the Militia members in Oregon are there doing what all of you “SAY” you are here for but I don’t see you all putting your ass on the line beside them! No they are not phonies nor fake patriots!

    The fakes and phony patriots are all of you on this page posting your limp-dicked, GUTLESS COWARDLY comments defaming them, their efforts, and their patriotism, especially all of you from California who have allowed Brown and his Nazi Legislature to deny you your “God Given Rights”. In the last twenty years I have not seen a single Californian get off their ass and stand up, to the Nazi’s in power in CA.

    Every one of you should shut up and hang your head in shame until at least you are able to grow a set of balls and go join those patriots in Oregon!

    Go study the events in Athens , Tennessee back in 1946 and you will see true patriots and how they dealt with a criminal government and they proper way to deal with them. There is no difference between today’s actions and those of 1946, the enemy is still and always has been the criminal government!

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      What never ceases to amaze me is how people will cuddle with phonies and spit on real vets to make a political point. You’re judged by the company you keep, Junior. If it didn’t bother you then you wouldn’t have bothered to write that little breathless screed above trying to make yourself seem more patriotic than you really are. Good luck with that.

    • OIF '06-'07-'08 says:

      Well Ned, GFY!!!!!!!

      Seems even the III% wants nothing to do with your shenanigans, and if they don’t, then that means that instead of 300 patriots making a stand, there are 300 idiots that just might get their dick’s spanked hard and sent home crying to your mothers.

    • Climb to Glory says:

      Take a knee and drink water, you.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      So how many years of real active duty did you put in, NED?

      Just askin’. I like to keep things straight up and tidy.

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      And, oh, by the way Stanley Blaine Cooper Hicks has 18 arrests and four felony convictions in Arizona in the last 15 years, depending on which combination of the names above that you search upon. But, yeah, he’s real fucking patriot.

    • OWB says:

      Oh, goody. Another chew toy. Thanks for dropping by, Ben.

    • Animal says:

      On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: “We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making.” The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.

      Is this what we should look forward to from your “patriots”? Replacing one set of crooks for another?

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      Hey “Neb”, you ever served in the military???

      Let me guess, your answer to that question would probably be “NO”, right? But, I would bet that you’re a real deal “Call of Booty – Anal Buttsekks Warrior”, aren’t you?

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Hey NED, I already see you as one balding creature with a beerbelly that likes to sit in bookstores wearing camo with a scowl on your face while reading “Soldier of Fortune” thinking it makes you look like an intimidating badass. YOU’RE OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE HERE on TAH, and you’ll get chewed up and spit out every time my mental masochist! 😀 You’re so pea brained I bet a demitasse would fit on your head like a sombrero!!

    • Kristoffer says:

      Anyone else notice that “Neb Selim” is “Ben Miles” spelled backwards? That might be his true identity.

    • Jarhead says:

      Whoa just a damned minute NEBO. You POS calling many a combat veterans limp dick! It’s our ass that went on the line for trolls like you to have the freedom to spew your garbage. You f___ing 3% war heroes multiiplied by all 50 states (yep, not 52 or 57 as your leader claims) comes out to an even 150%. But of what? Be a man and put your real name and home town on this site, why don’t you? Reference to Athens, Tn. in 1946 would tell me you are probably some liberal associate professor at the University of Dickwads. Those of us who do know and remember history realize that was a product of corruption, nothing else. You damned sure must be a member of some group of “Ain’t Seen Shit, But Gonna Talk It Every Day” wannabees. No doubt your interest in this web site is to concoct war stories to share with gullible folks who believe in the Tooth Fairy. By any chance were you a three hash mark Girl Scout? Tell you what, go study John Kerry’s life and maybe you can get yourself into his outfit. You are plain and simple barking up the WRONG tree with your bullshit Bubba. Calling any and all of us on this site the names you have suggested is like Farting in King Kong’s face. You worthless cowardly wannabee Piece of Shit. BTW, Patriotism just isn’t the same without Experience At Sacrifice. As of this moment you are General Nib Shit. Kind of like a sidewalk superintendent while a construction job is going on in the neighborhood. Up yours you candy ass.

    • PFM says:

      Hey dick, I swore an oath to that government that means a hell of a lot more to me than your ragtag band of yahoos – as far as I am concerned my retirement did not invalidate it. Pull some shit and see just how many vets really support you…

    • Flagwaver says:

      Isn’t that cute. Someone’s mother must have left the parental controls off of her router. Well, Nadine, you must enjoy living in your little G.I.Joe fantasy land.

      You see, a couple of us actually live in Oregon and are up on the events down south. However, I didn’t want to get associated with the posers and publicity hounds that just wanted their pictures in the headlines.

      You must be momma’s big boy for all your internet toughness, though. Calling veterans you’ve never met names and beating on your little chest takes a lot of courage. You should go get a hug from mommy.

      I’m personally helping out in ways that you don’t even know about. My shooting range is teaming up with several others to collect money for their legal defense. I’m helping with a letter-writing campaign for our legislative-monkeys to try and dangle a banana to make them fling their poo at the right places.

      Your job of throwing insults is just as important, Susan. When your boyfriend sees what you’ve done, I’m sure he’ll be so happy that he’ll slip your panties off from under your skirt and just go to town on you with his hand. Just remember to take your pill that morning if he wants to do anything else. You never can be too safe.

    • Reb says:


      Another BADASS via posts and a pussy FACE to FACE. If I wasn’t dealing with your butt buddy Bernie, I would OUT MYSELF just to cram my history down your throat.

      The assholes in Oregon are a shitload of morons who couldn’t say THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE if it was written on a poster board because they can’t fucking read. Please join them and hope fully one of those losers will accidentally put you out of your misery.

      Although I can’t be found, I sure as hell will do everything to find your ass and I’M FUCKING GOOD, I SWEAR TO BUDDHA!!

    • Silentium Est Aureum says:

      Gutless and cowardly…spoken by a group who pussed out of going to boot to a group of veterans with multiple combat deployments, CIB’s, etc.

      Stop. Hurt. Sides. Laughing.

      Sit down and zip it, son. The adults are talking.

      And when WE start shooting, then you know shit just got real. And we’re nowhere near that point. Not even close.

    • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

      Did someone just fart? I heard something, smelled something…

      Oh, just Neb defending his boyfriends

      Never mind.

    • Reb says:

      NED, MILES, whatever..

      HOW DARE YOU use the word nazi with a capital N. What the hell could you possibly know about nazis? What you read in school? 20 yrs you’ve been watching the politics in CA. If your not living there why give a ratsass! That makes you around 38-40. Non military, law enforcement, or anything that includes a firearm. Who are you trying to impress with your speech? YOURSELF?

      You call my friends who have served THEIR COUNTRY, some wounded and praise Buddha most not, GUTLESS BUT, your so scared you post in a fake name. Trying to play with the big boys. I post under my name, Reb, short for Rebel a nickname I’ve carried since nine protecting people just like you against bullies.

      You unbelievable pussy, you talk your bullshit and side with the very people who were outed as Posers. I sure as hell didn’t read your heading to Oregon to stand side by side with the other butt buddies you fell in love with via a news report.

      Your the last wimp I would be afraid of, but I’d be leery that during any violent altercation between whoever, you’d be in a fetal position hiding instead of fighting.

      Each person who posts here are more patriotic then all the loud mouth wannbe dipshits dressed in their Halloween costumes carrying weapons they sure as shit don’t know how to use. Still want to join them? I’ll send you a one way ticket.

  24. Nina says:

    Guess what? There’s another idiot involved in the Oregon mess that y’all here at TAH will find to be somewhat familiar to you.. Anyone recognize the name Jon Ritzheimer???

    • Nina says:

      Didn’t see the message above. However, it is verified that he is there – since a guy I knew in high school drove over to Burn and is super duper climbing the walls excited that he got to meet that idiot and others while there…. per his (the guy from HS) posting on FB about an hour ago.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      IS IT ME, or is Ritzheimer grimacing like he has at least eight corncobs and a barrel cactus up his ass sideways?

  25. Casey says:

    Looks like PJ Media is expressing breathless admiration for those guys…

    • Green Thumb says:

      I actually understand some of their intentions.

      Problem is a sizeable percentage of them, especially the ones clamoring for their 15 minutes at the microphone, are turds and washouts.


      And no credibility.

  26. Martinjmpr says:

    Cletus Spucker’s Trailer Park “Militia” rides again huh?

  27. AW1Ed says:

    And…..Here Come The Feds! Surprising exactly no one.

    “Sources tell KOIN 6 News federal officials are working with local deputies to try to bring an end to the situation. The FBI will reportedly be the lead agency in dealing with the armed militants.”

    What ever could go wrong?

    • Dave Hardin says:

      “We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely,” Ammon Bundy said. “This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.”

      Brilliant, maybe they will take over Welcome Center shit houses all over the country.

      • UpNorth says:

        Well, it’s not like those limp dicks have jobs to go to. Shouldn’t the Bundy boys be home helping Pa take care of those cattle they “rescued” from the feds?

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        “Brilliant, maybe they will take over Welcome Center shit houses all over the country.”

        I can see it already, either they’ll get arrested the moment they’re mistaken for gay “lot lizards” or people won’t be able to do their restroom business without having to listen to their babble!

      • Silentium Est Aureum says:

        Why not? I mean, they’re probably very familiar with all the rest stops along I-15 and US-95 already.

  28. JarHead Pat says:

    If only the might flying purple thunder cunt would come to their aid.

  29. Just An Old Dog says:

    Wonder if Jeffery “Mouse” Prosen has showed up?

  30. JP says:

    Wow, you guys really inhaled the government indoctrination when you were in the military, didn’t you?

    • Hondo says:

      No. However, we do accept the fact that an arsonist deserves the sentence mandated by Federal law when they plead guilty. And apparently unlike you, we’re willing to actually, you know, research the facts behind the Hammond case. (See link to the 9th Circuit appeal opinion above.)

      • gitarcarver says:

        No. However, we do accept the fact that an arsonist deserves the sentence mandated by Federal law when they plead guilty.

        Speak for yourself Hondo.

        The Hammonds were convicted of a terrorist charge – not merely arson. As the District judge noted, Congress did not see this situation occurring and felt that there was no way Congress would have wanted a charge of terrorism to be applied to someone burning the overgrowth off of their own property that jumped a line on a map. The judge further stated that a sentence of 5 years for less than $200 in damage was a violation of the 8th Amendment.

        If the Hammonds are “terrorists,” then who exactly are they trying to terrorize? That’s the problem with this case.

        This case is in some ways similar to Bond v. US where the government tried a jilted women who placed a bomb in a mailbox with a violation of an international chemical weapons treaty. The Supreme Court overturned that, in case you forgot. The message from the SCOTUS was clear: not every case is one of terrorism just because the government says so.

        The Ninth Circuit’s opinion tries to relate people with multiple convictions (three strike laws) with a person convicted in a singular incident like the Hammonds in saying the Eighth Amendment doesn’t apply. Such “logic” is laughable on its face.

        The Hammonds committed a crime that was arguably one without intent. They served what was a reasonable and just sentence – unless, of course you think that serving the upgraded sentence which works out to $8.33 a month in damages for each month served is just.

        The bottom line is that in my opinion, the Ninth Circuit got it wrong in many ways. The Hammonds served their time and should not be subjected to more time in jail.

        It should also be said that while I believe the people occupying the BLM building are clowns, we did not see the same “bleating of the media” when it came to the Occupy Wall Street taking over public spaces. Nor do we see the same outrage over the Black Lives Matter movement which has taken over buildings and blocked traffic on state and federal roads.

        • Kristoffer says:

          I have a news flash for you – arson is arson, and whether or not the law was meant to combat terrorism is irrelevant. So is intent. If you’re such an idiot that you let a planned wildfire get out of control, you deserve jail time.

          BTW, here’s what the 8th Amendment actually says: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” Don’t see how 5 years for causing a potential disaster is “cruel and unusual”.

          • gitarcarver says:

            I have news for you as well, the Hammonds were convicted under a terrorism law – not just an arson law. As per the District Judge at the sentencing, the two were convicted under “Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.”

            Here’s what he said:

            I am not going to apply the mandatory minimum and because, to me, to do so under the Eighth Amendment would result in a sentence which is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here.

            And with regard to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, this sort of conduct could not have been conduct intended under that statute.

            When you say, you know, what if you burn sagebrush in the suburbs of Los Angeles where there are houses up those ravines? Might apply. Out in the wilderness here, I don’t think that’s what the Congress intended. And in addition, it just would not be — would not meet any idea I have of justice, proportionality. I am not supposed to use the word “fairness” in criminal law. I know that I had a criminal law professor a long time ago yell at me for doing that. And I don’t do that. But this — it would be a sentence which would shock the conscience to me.

            I agree that if you let a wildfire get out of control that you deserve jail time. That is why I have no issues with the 3 months / year and a day sentence originally imposed on the Hammods.

            As to “causing a potential disaster,” that is a decent argument except for the fact that what could have happened is conjecture. What did happen is factual. It could be that gun owners will shoot someone. Let’s take their guns. Or, it could be that when speeding down a side street, you could have hit some child. Let’s charge you with manslaughter.

            I know what the Eighth Amendment says. If you think five years for accidentally burning a little over a 1/5th of a square mile in the wilderness and causing $200 in damages to sagebrush isn’t “cruel and unusual,” then I am not sure what your definition of “cruel and unusual” would be.

            • Hondo says:

              The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was inspired by domestic terrorism (OKC, WTC). However, it included a number of non-terrorism related provisions, including victim restitution and other matters not directly related to terrorism. Further, while Section VII of the bill was titled “Criminal Law Modifications to Combat Terrorism”, the changes there do not apply solely to terrorist acts. They apply to ALL crimes defined therein committed after passage of the law.

              Regarding the current case, Section 708 of that bill – now 18 USC 844(f)(1) – has no language limiting the mandatory sentence for arson to arson committed for terrorist purposes. Had that been Congress’ intent, such language would have been included.


              Courts do not have the authority to ignore unambiguous existing law because they “don’t like it”. And both the 9th Circuit and the SCOTUS body-slammed the retiring judge’s contention that the mandatory minimum sentence was “unconstitutionally severe”. In particular, the 9th Circuit did so with multiple examples of seemingly lesser offenses receiving more severe sentences that Federal courts had previously upheld as being permissible.

              • gitarcarver says:

                The problem with your position is that it seems to say that intent of the law doesn’t matter. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does. It also boggles the mind that you believe that a law is always perfect and perfectly applied. Do you really think that the Act which encompassed more pages than people can count imagined every scenario?

                If you want to rely on the cited law, please do. It reads, in part:

                (1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any institution or organization receiving Federal financial assistance, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.

                There is NO evidence that the Hammonds set the fire on their property with the intent – malicious or otherwise – that the fire would burn public lands.

                The Supreme Court denied cert in the case, so I am not sure why you think that they “body slammed” the retiring judge. I also previously addressed the cases the Ninth Circuit cited as most of them sentences based on recidivist statutes or cases where there was intent. As the Hammonds were not repeat offenders nor intended the fire to cross a line on a map, it is difficult to see the parallels and comparisons.

                Finally, if the Hammonds’ fire had stayed on other people’s land in the state or state land and not gone onto Federal land, they would have been convicted in court of a Class A misdemeanor. That conviction would have resulted in a MAXIMUM 12 months in jail and a MAXIMUM fine of $6250.

                Instead, because the Hammonds’ fire jumped a line on a map, they are in jail for 5 years and a fine of $400,000.

                If you see that as appropriate, I am not sure what to say. After all, you thought the NFL had handled the Brady suspension well even though others were looking at the actual facts of the case.

                • MrBill says:

                  The jury would have been instructed on the applicable law. By convicting, the jury necessarily did find that the fire was set maliciously. As discussed in the 9th Circuit opinion (excerpted in the Popehat article I linked to below), there was at least some evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the fire was set maliciously. Whether you or I might have reached a different conclusion from this evidence is another matter – but you’re mistaken in asserting that there was no evidence at all.

                  • Hondo says:

                    Something the Popehat article doesn’t mention is the fact that on each occasion (2001 and 2006 – they were acquitted in the 2006 incident, but convicted in the 2001 charge if I recall the appeal decision correctly, but I might have those reversed), the Hammonds had no permission for the burn. In at least one of the two cases, they proceeded after being expressly reminded beforehand that a permit/permission was required, and in one of the two cases proceeded while a “no burn” directive was in force.

                    Couple that with the comments to their nephew to “light up the whole place” (or words to that effect), and it’s quite plausible that the jury concluded the act was deliberate.

                    Bottom line: as you note above, the jury concluded that the Hammonds set the fire “maliciously”, and convicted them. Unless their defense attorney was monumentally incompetent, he/she would have claimed that “this was simply an accident, there was no malicious intent” at trial. I presume he/she did – and the jury didn’t buy it.

                • Hondo says:

                  Had the Hammond’s fires stayed on state or private property, they wouldn’t have violated Federal law. Similarly, if a frog had wings he wouldn’t hand hard on his butt every time he jumped.

                  Reality is different in each case.

                • MrBill says:

                  This is another important factor – the Hammonds agreed not to appeal their section 844 convictions, in exchange for other charges being dismissed, and having their sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively. So, although the Hammonds could have appealed their convictions if they truly believed that there was no evidence of maliciousness (a necessary element of the crime), they agreed to accept their convictions. If they didn’t know at the time that section 844 carries a minimum five-year term, they should have known. You know, maybe this is why they’re not contesting their sentences.

                  • Hondo says:

                    Actually, they did. The SCOTUS told them to pound sand as well by refusing to consider their appeal.

                    • MrBill says:

                      You’re right of course, should have added the words “any further” – i.e., they’re reporting to jail quietly and have discouraged the militia types from any action on their account.

            • MrBill says:

              Here’s a good discussion of the law from Popehat, one of my favorite legal blogs –


  31. Old98Z says:

    Y’all Qaida
    Vanilla Isis
    Yokels harum

    And correct spelling of benmiles or blainedumfuck is ‘limpdick’.

    Ps … come on down for free lifestyle change

  32. Old98Z says:

    When I first read on this incident. I thought it might be serious. If ranger danger and Blaine poser are what this bunch = . Just roll them up.
    These guys go back to la la land

  33. mr. sharkman says:

    Here’s an interesting historical writeup on the situation. I have no idea how truthful or accurate it is, but it contains enough specifics to make research possible.

  34. Reb says:

    If the wimps in Oregon think the Feds, ATF, and other federal agencies are gonna let a bunch of IDIOTS RUN THE SHOW, better put the heads together and think about just going home.

    Our federal agencies are trained to bring the drama to a close. You probably don’t have a plan and which idiot forgot to pack food and water. Four posers known by TAH have been spotted and eyes are watching for others.

    Advice from a mother. Get your ass home now and expect that ass if yours to hurt after I beat you with a hickory switch. You’re not allowed to play with them boys anymore.

    To see a mother slap the son that still lives with her would skyrocket…

  35. L. Taylor says:

    Their plan is terrible.

    Do they even have plan?

    Idiot parade.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      And that’s putting it mildly. I see them as a parade of imbeciles that have spent too much time in their Parent’s basements reading “Soldier of Fortune” and conspiracy websites.

    • Hondo says:

      Agreed, in general.

      They are idiots. Regarding a plan, IMO it appears they have one – and I agree it’s a seriously bad one. It seems to be “hope public opinion convinces the Federal government to back off”. That doesn’t happen too often in cases like this.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Yes, they actually do have a plan. It’s quite simple, when you understand their true nature as attention whores and drama queens. It goes like this:

      A)-Get media attention
      B)-Stay on camera as long as possible
      C)-Wear mil-style clothing that is out of date and carry mean-looking weapons
      D)-Grab an on-camera moment or 10 whenever possible
      E)-When they come to D), repeat as needed until the TV crews and trucks are gone.

      • nbcguy54ACTUAL says:

        Does anyone outside of the local area really care what’s going on up there?
        I’m sure there is some real news somewhere else…

        • UpNorth says:

          If the media would pack up and leave, the “occupiers” would drift off, either in large packs or one, two and three at a time.
          Do any of those jackholes have jobs? Or, do they live off of the taxpayers, like #BlackLiesMatter?

    • OIF '06-'07-'08 says:

      Hell, a class of E4’s in PLDC or what ever it is called today could come up with a better Op-order that these dim-wits have.

  36. SFC D says:

    I’m just hoping this doesn’t turn into the sequel to Ruby Ridge.

  37. Hondo says:

    For those wondering “what’s the big deal about a wildfire” – well, you might want to view this article:

    In semi-arid or arid climates (like those found in much of the US west), fire is – to paraphrase our VP – a “big (freaking) deal”.

    The figure of 30,000 acres in the article is not a misprint. It equates to a bit under 47 square miles – or nearly twice the size of Manhattan. And by historical standards in the US west, that’s not anywhere close to a record.

  38. The Commentor' Formerly Known as MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

    If a gun fight breaks out, I betcha the feds wins!

    • Hondo says:

      You’re probably right – but let’s hope we don’t find out either way.

      • The Commentor' Formerly Known as MCPO NYC USN Ret. says:

        I agree and we all know how these things end.

        There are never any winners.

        An armed group occupying a federal building and or property IS a serious provocation that will not stand.

        The Oafkeepers are complete morons.

  39. GDContractor says:

    Jonn asked why Blaine Cooper is wearing kneepads. Maybe the Oafkeepers have a phony SGM.

  40. Silentium Est Aureum says:

    Dear Dan Sutton,

    Nice tits, bitch.

  41. Jarhead says:

    Am I just too naieve or what? Ranching and farming on land that requires resources or space from adjoining federal land seems to me as risky and nothing that can be counted on forever, regardless the current situation. That would include putting one’s self in the position of likely in a lifetime having to deal with lightening started fires that might morph over onto your land. Bound to be a tough business to be in, but when fed. property is figured into your business plan, you are taking the risk of sucking hind tit on any given day. We all know just caving in, selling and moving is life changing at ANY age. To me, you are ALWAYS fighting city hall on the Federal level. That’s a tough one to win, no matter how many peaceful years have passed.

    A different subject altogether, but some people buy houses at really low IRS prices when the situation prevails from non-payment of taxes, generating the auctions in the beginning. Unfortunately some of those buyers do not understand that there is a good probability of other prior liens placed on the property. You become the winning bidder and suddenly you find YOURSELF owing and personally liable for outstanding liens you may have not been aware of their attachment to the property. Bottom line is this….When dealing with Big Bro. on raw land or physical property, Let The Buyer Beware. Big Bro is NOt your friend, NOT the kind of neighbor you want, and NOT to EVER be counted on should they be helping you now or later. It’s nothing but business and we ain’t nothing but the peasants given a sniff of dependable assistance in a manner in which you can easily fool yourself as to their intentions down the years. Managers change, Directors change, and worst of all ATTITUDES change.
    The bread crumbs are about the best you can count on; and that is ONLY temporary.

  42. Reb says:

    My young one is really smart and funny..while watching everything unfold in the news she started to laugh. Whats so funny? Those guys aren’t National would you know? Their just standing there not looking around for bad guys and the clothes don’t match. Pozz, their pretend soldiers who took over the building.

    Can’t the FBI tell them to leave and go play war with their paintball guns? They have a right to protest.. NOT IF THEY LOOK STUPID..can we turn the channel?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *