Thursday, October 27, 2016

Going undercover with "Mexican hunting" militia members. Update!

"Destroyer," "Sandstone," and "Iceman" are just some of the nicknames these guys give themselves.

A bunch of oversized kids playing war on American soil.

I don't know what bothers me more, that they are openly racist and longing for a confrontation with minorities, or that they seem to be embraced by the actual law enforcement in the area.

Here is the entire Mother Jones article.

It is a little long, but quite informative, and seriously unsettling.

Update: On the subject of militias it looks like the Bundy boys have been found not guilty

Well that certainly sends an unfortunate message to these groups.


  1. Anonymous3:14 PM

    I read the article. I know who some of these Yahoo's are.
    Everything you would expect minus the brain.

  2. Anonymous3:18 PM


    Republicans already have two years worth of investigations lined up to obstruct Hillary from doing ANYTHING.

    "Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, boasts to Dave Weigel that he plans to begin multiple years’ worth of investigations into the incoming Clinton presidency. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up.” Chaffetz makes clear in his interview that two years truly is a low-ball figure."

    "So the Republican plan is to consume Clinton’s presidency with an investigative apparatus that will surround her with allegations of corruption, which in turn can enmesh her staff into defensive paranoia that produces cover-ups that in turn produce more grist for additional investigations and hearings. Note that this assumes that Clinton and her staff manage not only to avoid any legitimate scandal — which is difficult for any administration, given the historical frequency of scandals — but also to avoid anything that House Republicans would consider scandalous, which is near impossible. Chaffetz has plans to spend most of Clinton’s term criminalizing her presidency even if her administration is somehow as pure as driven snow. In the far more likely scenario that it isn’t — and, let’s face it, she has surrounded herself with some pretty shady characters before — it will get much, much worse.

    The 40-member House Freedom Caucus, which abjures compromise in all forms and habitually goads its leadership into hopelessly aggressive confrontations, is already stirring up a challenge to Paul Ryan’s Speakership. It’s unlikely that the Caucus will actually topple Ryan. What it will do is limit his ability to conduct normal business in the chamber. The intent of the coup threats is to bring the House leadership to heel. Ryan has every incentive to support Chaffetz’s star-chamber strategy and no leeway whatsoever to rein it in. Indeed, Ryan is already praising Chaffetz. Ryan’s office told Weigel that he “supports [Oversight’s] investigative efforts following where the evidence leads.”

    The constant churn of scandals will keep the Republican base in a state of perpetual frenzy at the administration’s perfidy, some of which will redound back at the Republican leadership. However far Republicans go, conservatives will be furious they haven’t gone further. Ryan will be facing endless coup threats, and his members the prospect of right-wing primary challenges. The last thing they will want to do is cast votes for Clinton-supported policies. A total boycott on any legislative cooperation will constitute the moderate, responsible Republican position. The “crazy” Republicans will be the ones who demand impeachment or publicly muse about political violence."

    "What Republicans have demonstrated and proved during the Obama era is that bipartisan cooperation is a losing strategy for the out party. As Mitch McConnell explained, if proposals had bipartisan support, it would signal to America that they were unobjectionable, making them, and their president, popular; the president’s popularity would then make it harder for the opposition to gain seats or defeat him in the next election. "

  3. Anonymous3:18 PM


    Then of course, there is the Supreme Court. They're not going to confirm Garland before Obama leaves office. And they're not going to consider ANYONE that Hillary nominates. No matter how many justices the Supreme Court loses.

    "“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.

    Shapiro is well-versed in constitutional issues, and his argument has a legal, if contorted, basis. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly stands in the way of senators who would be willing to destroy the nation’s highest court ― if not an entire branch of the federal government ― to stop Clinton from selecting judges who share her views.

    But McCain’s comments suggesting a total blockade initially faced opposition, even from some members of his own party. “We can’t just simply stonewall” those hypothetical Clinton nominees, said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

    Of course, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley is doing exactly that to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

    To Shapiro, there’s nothing wrong with even more Senate obstructionism because “the Constitution is completely silent” on how the upper chamber provides its “advice and consent” on the president’s nominees.

    Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have agreed that’s true. But they’ve also concluded that the Republicans’ no-hearings-no-votes posture on Garland is unprecedented in American history. And many deplore the partisanship that has overwhelmed the judicial confirmation process over the last few decades."

    1. Anonymous3:48 PM


    2. Anonymous7:15 PM


      That's exactly what he ought to do.

      Then let the new DEMOCRATIC majority Senate back up the appointment. The Republicans will not only be in the minority, but should be constantly shamed with the reminder that convicted child rapist Donald Trump was their nominee.

  4. Anonymous3:24 PM

    Makes me sick. And I heard the Oregon sanctuary vandals got a not guilty verdict too.

    1. Anonymous3:32 PM

      As an Oregonian, I am pissed beyond belief!

    2. Anonymous4:04 PM

      no kidding 3:22. there is plenty of video documenting their every move and demand. how does that make them not guilty??

    3. Anonymous6:27 PM

      Because they are armed white men who took over and vandalized federal property and threatened federal workers. They aren't terrorist. Now back people peacefully protesting police shootings of unarmed black men, or unarmed Native Americans fighting to protect sacred Lans and clean water? Those are terrorists

    4. Anonymous7:34 PM

      @4:04 "Smoking inside" a public building is punishable by law. WTF???

    5. Anonymous7:35 PM

      I don't believe it! How could any judge or jury let them off? Not with all that evidence.

      There is no stopping them now. They are going to do this over and over and next time, people are going to die.

  5. Anonymous3:42 PM

    WELL now. Oregon update: Seems Ammon Bundy's lawyer wanted him free to leave the courthouse free, but he is being held on other charges so the judge said NO, a heated arguments ensued, US Marshals stormed the courtroom, laptops flying everywhere, and tazed the lawyer.

    Keep Portland Weird!

    1. Anonymous3:54 PM

      Jury Tampering? WTF?

    2. Anonymous4:07 PM

      Juror was right to recuse himself. BLM ties does make him biased, as he said. This is WTF Oregon, federal court or not, and this ruling unfortunately gives the green light to others now.


    3. Anonymous4:12 PM

  6. Anonymous3:59 PM

    OT? Like Cocaine...

  7. Anonymous4:03 PM

    They want to plan warfare so bad, they made up an enemy. Sad.

  8. Anonymous4:16 PM

    I hope they at least have to pay restitution to repair the sanctuary visitor center and grounds.

  9. Anonymous4:23 PM

    In Ohio today drumpf "We’re gonna work on our ghettos … take a look at what’s going on where you have pockets of, areas of land, where you have the inner cities," "The Republican nominee’s “ghetto” comment is the newest addition to what is the standard Trump narrative that black communities are hells capes."

  10. Anonymous4:34 PM

    Tweets, Photos NOW!

  11. Anonymous7:40 PM

    "is white privilege in action “Our research found that black boys can be seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent.”


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.