Do You Support the Hammond Family?

January 05, 2016

Editor

On his radio program Tuesday, Glenn shared his thoughts on one of the biggest stories that's been flooding the media outlets thus far in 2016.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and his son were charged with arson for setting fires that spread to public land in 2001 and 2006. The government used an anti-terrorism statute to secure its convictions.

"I support the Hammonds," Glenn said, while making it clear he is not a fan of the tactics of Ammon Bundy and others protesting their incarceration.

He explained the statutes authorities relied on to convict the Hammonds were put in place after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

"What they were going after was, you go in and shoot up a federal building, you go in and set it on fire, we've got you for five years. That's what they were trying to go after," Glenn said. "Not somebody who is trying to stop a fire on their own land, or even, quite honestly, somebody who is trying to cover their tracks."

What do you think?

Listen to the segment and share your reaction in the comments section below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I support the Hammonds. Now, Stu is telling me that he thinks there is testimony in the court case from the Hammonds' relatives that show that they were poaching.

STU: Yeah, actually Jeffy had sent around a bunch of articles yesterday, one of which indicated that one of their relatives had testified -- they had several quotes from these guys, saying that that is why they set the fires.

GLENN: To cover their track.

STU: Illegal deer poaching or whatever.

PAT: So it wasn't this innocuous thing to prevent forest fires.

STU: I believe that's what their claim was.

PAT: Huh.

STU: And, look, I think that's kind of separate from this. In that, even if they did something absolutely wrong, it's still unfair to somebody to sentence them for a crime, have them exit prison, resume their life, and say, "Oh, by the way, you're going back to prison for the same crime."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I have to tell you, you're living on 6,000 acres and a deer happens to cross a fence, I now can't shoot it because it's crossed a fence. I mean, it's a different world out there. It's just a different world. Now, I'm not going to shoot it because I know I shoot a deer, it crosses the fence, I'm in trouble. And I don't know anybody who would do that. However, you're on 6,000 acres of land and if you're getting your food that way and you're shooting across a fence, for the love of Pete.

STU: I mean, again, the case is tough. And you're right. I don't live in that world, and I don't understand the world of the western rancher at all, to be perfectly frank about it. I'm just telling you what their case was, which they said they said it -- so they knew -- they knew they were committing -- doing something wrong, that's why they set the fire.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And while they set the fire, they did not alert any of the authorities who were out there with firefighters fighting another fire. So, you know, their accusation was they put other firefighters in danger because they were --

JEFFY: I think that was the second fire.

STU: Yeah, it was two separate fires.

JEFFY: There's two separate fires.

GLENN: But I also heard the testimony said that the firemen -- some firemen said that isn't true, that they actually helped them, that it actually helped put the fire out. Post.

STU: It's hard to drill down. They were convicted of the crime. But that doesn't -- again, that doesn't excuse this.

GLENN: I think the first judge was right. It would have been cruel and unusual punishment to give them five years for this crime. Cruel and unusual. And the only reason why it's five years is because of 9/11.

STU: Yeah. Oklahoma City.

GLENN: Oklahoma City. It would not have been this if it wasn't for Oklahoma City. They were trying to be tough. What they were going after was, you go in and shoot up a federal building, you go in and set it on fire, we've got you for five years. That's what they were trying to go after. Not somebody who is trying to stop a fire on their own land, or even, quite honestly, somebody who is trying to cover their tracks --

PAT: Because they shot a deer.

GLENN: Because they shot a deer. That's not terrorism, for the love of Pete.

STU: Obviously not.

GLENN: And I like the way the Hammonds seem to be handling this. They have asked people, the Bundys, "Go home. Go home. We're reporting for our sentence on Monday." They did yesterday. They're going to be heard in front of a court tomorrow. I think they're handling this the right way myself. I actually have respect for the Hammonds.

PAT: Yeah, they didn't condone this taking over the federal building. Of course, it's more of a federal shack, really.

GLENN: Yeah, it's not really a federal building.

PAT: I mean, they make it sound like it's in the middle of downtown Portland, like they took over a highrise. It's this dumpy, little shack out in the middle of nowhere. Thirty miles from a tiny, little town that's in the middle of nowhere.

JEFFY: But that's a different argument, right?

PAT: Yeah, that's a different argument.

JEFFY: The BLM overreach is a different argument than what they're -- I mean, that's what they're fighting for, is the overreach of the land management.

PAT: Yeah. Supposedly 30 or 100 ranches have been taken from their owners by the federal government in 100 years.

JEFFY: I know. We're having it here in Texas.

GLENN: But we're having it here in Texas too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The federal government is overreaching. People in the east don't understand this. Utah is 80 percent BLM land. 80 percent owned by the federal government. That's insane.

Featured Image: A sign is posted on a fence at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters on January 5, 2016 near Burns, Oregon. An armed anti-government militia group continues to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Headquarters as they protest the jailing of two ranchers for arson. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The case for mass deportation

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Unchecked illegal immigration into America may be the most dangerous issue our country faces today, and with every day it goes unsolved, the risk of a terrorist attack of 9/11 proportions only increases.

Despite the risk, we can't even touch the subject without the Left and the mainstream media having a meltdown. Even suggesting that the tide of undocumented immigrants may pose some sort of national problem will quickly get you labeled as a racist, stumping intelligent conversation before it can even begin. But as any right-minded Conservative will tell you, calls to close the border and deport the people who stole into our country have nothing to do with race.

In his most recent TV special, Glenn described in detail what sorts of dangers we have let into our countries, with facts and figures that prove that if we don't act soon we will be in deep trouble. Glenn made it clear: we need to conduct a mass deportation or risk being torn apart from within. Here are three reasons that make the case for mass deportations:

Islamic terror cells are forming in South America.

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Congressional testimony from the Committee on Homeland Security in 2011 revealed that Hugo Chavez held a "Secret Summit" involving the Supreme Leader of Hamas, the Chief of Operations for Hezbollah, and the Secretary General of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Caracas, Venezuela. It is clear that ever since (and possibly before) there has been a Radical Islamic Terrorist presence in Venezuela. Right now there is an Iranian beachhead off the Venezuelan coast on Margarita Island, where the Iranian government is running criminal activities and recruiting and training Venezuelan gangs. These gangs have used our border crisis to infiltrate the U.S. The most infamous of these gangs, Tren de Aragua, has been declared a terrorist organization by the State of Texas.

Terrorist-backed gangs are smuggling in weapons and tearing through the country.

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

What are these Iranian-trained and backed gangs doing in America? As you can imagine, nothing good. Just this year alone an estimated million rounds of ammunition, 1.2 million gun parts, 3,000 body armor vests, and thousands of pieces of other military paraphernalia have been smuggled across the border. On top of that, they have already taken over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado, and are now terrorizing the remaining residents.

It's noteworthy that the gang managed to move into the apartment in the first place because they received subsidies through an NGO that was assisting the Colorado asylum seekers program, using money given to the state by the Biden administration in 2021.

Gangs have attacked military bases.

Lee Corkran / Contributor | Getty Images

It hasn't stopped at apartment complexes either. A leak from the U.S. Army revealed that the gangs have launched probing attacks on military facilities within the U.S. Members have been sighted taking surveillance photos of Lackland Air Force Base, as well as firing multiple shots into the facility. Another military base in Texas, Fort Sam Houston, caught a gang member attempting to gain access to the facility. This coincides with suspicious activity documented within the Permian Basin, the largest oil field in the U.S.

They are smuggling in vast quantities of military equipment, probing and surveying military facilities and key energy locations, and taking over residential areas. What exactly is going on and why isn't the federal government taking it more seriously?

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This might have been the most consequential VP debate in recent memory.

For those of you who missed the debate, it was a decisive victory for J.D. Vance and the Trump-Vance team as a whole. Vance presented a calm, collected, and considerate side of the Republican party that compliments Trump and helps to make their platform more palatable. Meanwhile, Tim Walz had a lackluster, though certainly not catastrophic, night. He had a few embarrassing gaffes and came across as overly nervous, but like Vance, kept it civil.

Both VP candidates entered the stage as relative unknowns to most Americans, and by the end, both men had given an accurate representation of their characters. Here is a brief recap just in case you missed the debate:

J.D. Vance looked great

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance came out of the gate swinging, with a stellar opening statement that helped set the stage for the rest of the debate. He delivered a concise yet compelling recap of his life, which framed him as everything Walz claims to be: a relatable veteran from humble beginnings who earned his position through hard work and service. He then went on to deliver a clear and palatable defense of Trump's platform and mission while cooly drawing attention to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

Overall, J.D. Vance looked incredibly presidential. He presented himself not just as a capable vice president, but as a strong successor to Trump and as a valid replacement if anything should happen to the former president between now and the end of his hypothetical second term. Vance also successfully dispelled the notion that he is "weird" as Walz called him, and if anyone looked strange during the debate, it certainly wasnot Vance.

Tim Walz's gaffes

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

While Tim Walz certainly didn't have an awful night, he did not stack up well against Vance. Walz had a major gaffe around halfway through the debate when asked to explain the change in his position on assault weapon bans. Walz then claimed that he had befriended school shooters during his time in office. While that was clearly not the intention of what he was saying, it was embarrassing nonetheless.

Another weak moment was when the moderators asked Walz to explain a claim he had made regarding being in Hong Kong during the infamous Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, which has since been proven false. Walz gave a long-winded, rambling answer about taking students to visit China and how Trump should have joined in on those trips, before being called out by the moderator for dodging the question.

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

One of the conditions of the CBS debate was that the moderators would not fact-check the debaters live, but instead rely on after-the-matter fact-checking. But, CBS couldn't keep to its own rules. While Vance was describing the migrant crisis that has swelled during the Biden-Harris administration, one of the CBS moderators, Margaret Brennan, chimed in with a "fact check." She claimed that the Haitian migrants in Ohio have legal status, to which Vance clapped back by calling Brennan out for breaking the rules of the debate, then proceeded to correct her, explaining that they only had legal status due to overreach by the Biden-Harris administration.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

Glenn's Show Prep