The Bundy Gang spokesman, "LaVoy" Finicum, managed to get himself shot to death by OSP last January 26, though a lot of supporters still claim that he was "murdered by the FBI". Anyhow, the Widder Finicum is a-headin' out to the town of John Day, Oregon:
"It is the anniversary of my husband's death. We want to continue with his mission," Jeanette Finicum told The Associated Press. "The people within counties and states should decide how to use those properties, not the federal government."
Bein' as his mission seemed to involve getting himself to assume ambient temperature, he accomplished that last year. If the Widder wants to continue with his mission, maybe she should quit claiming to be ranching, and just get on with it.
Of course, Finicum claimed to be a rancher, but he didn't have many cattle. He made his money from a herd of foster children. He just pretended to be a rancher. He owned a whopping three acres of land, but that gave him access to the Arizona Strip, assuming that he paid the grazing fees - which he didn't want to do. So he ran them on the Strip anyway, but most of his money came from government payments for raising foster kids. That operation went south when "LaVoy" decided to join the Bundy Gang at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge; it seems the government took a dim view of foster kids being raised by a spokesman-lawbreaker.
So after he went and got himself shot to death, the Widder's looking for a new source of income, and this is just the ticket: $16.50 per ticket, to be exact, in order to attend her "rally" at the Grant County Fairgrounds (although you can get a ticket and "LaVoy's" book for a mere $32). If interested, I believe you can pick up his book on Amazon for under fifty cents.
Things have taken a somewhat different turn over in North Dakota, where some folks have had just about enough of the pipeline protests:
A bill that state GOP Rep. Keith Kempenich introduced would exempt drivers from liability if they accidentally hit a pedestrian, according to the Bismarck Tribune. House Bill 1203 was written up in direct response to groups of protesters blocking roadways, Kempenich told the paper. He claims protesters were seen jumping out in front of vehicles.
“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Kempenich said. “They’re intentionally putting themselves in danger.”
I've always thought that protesting is fine, but I've never understood why some of them seem to think blocking roads is a legitimate approach. On the other hand, setting fire to news-stands and breaking windows and smashing cars has never seemed to me to constitute legitimate protest, either. Still, this legislative effort carries some rather ominous overtones; I'm not sure that giving drivers the freedom to behave like a bunch of so-called "Palestinians" is really the way to go, here.