Now that the leaders are all in jail, most likely having been ratted out by someone they thought was on their side, we can look at what succeeded and what failed in their mission.
Now comes the legal side of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge Incident. Again, the Feds are NOT doing the usual thing. After the bullets ordered by #ButcherOfBurns, OR Gov. Kate Brown subsided, and everyone surrendered out on the highway and were arrested, they were dragged to Portland and they appeared in Federal Magistrate's Court yesterday. The charges they did face? Feds stacked it up, right?
Wrong. The remaining rebels are each charged with ONE count of obstructing Federal Officers, a Class C or D felony which CAN be plead down to a misdemeaner (and probably will be, as I will explain). Notably, there are NO firearms violations charged, there are NO charges for the considerable theft/damage to Federal Property which occurred, and there are NO TERROR-RELATED charges (that's the biggie here). Now, in court, and you've seen this a million times on Wolf Films TeeVee shows, the arraignment prosecutor argued for no bail, argued dangerous peeps, argued out-of-state peeps, argued flight risk, all that, but additional hearings were set nearly immediately, so bail will likely be granted soon.
So, when #KorruptKate demanded that the occupation be terminated with extreme prejudice, it WAS, but only in the case of the firebrand Finicum, who, by the best accounts so far, seemed to desire Suicide By Cop, and got it. If you recall #KillerKate's speech in Salem last week though, she wanted the Federal book thrown at the occupiers, and SHE has been rebuffed. Oregon charges might be added, but for what? Being there? No, it's all Federal property, and the Feds want out of it and are getting out. Those additional Oregon charges, BTW, would have to be filed in Harney County, and no DA there wants to touch them.
End it, and give no opportunity for a showdown in Court later, those are the obviously the orders out of Washington. Martyrs are gonna seek martyrdom, that's what they do. NOW it makes sense that the Feds sought no warrants in Court. They could easily have gotten arrest warrants for a slew of felony charges, but didn't. Now I can see why. The handwriting was on the wall for the Feds when they saw the large and sympathetic crowd waiting for the Bundys and Finicum in John Day. This rebellion was about to spread. They stopped that, and now they want to deny the rebels their all-important soap box, and will likely succeed in that, too. There ARE some thinkers on the Federal side. Too bad they are stuck playing such a rigged game.
Bundy's success: he HAS raised the Federal Lands Debate to a National Discussion. It might even make it as a platform plank in the GOPe Party Platform this year.
Bundy's failures: He was never in command of his Militia. Finicum gave HIM orders. You can't lead from the rear, unless you INTEND to be a REMF*, which is terrible leadership. Bundy was NO logistician, supply for his mission was a major issue. G-2 (Intelligence) was a HUGE failure. Bundy's case should have resembled that of the French Partisans in WW2 because the locals were on his side for the most part, but he never involved them until right at the end, when he and Finicum put together the show in John Day that he was enroute to when the Feds decided to end his game. From Day One, Bundy should have talked to the local ranchers one at a time to determine friend from foe, and set possible new refuge ground if his first choice became untenable.
To the extent that the Feds are buddy-buddy with the press, the story will now go away, unless one of the major GOPe candidates wants to keep the Lands Issue alive as a campaign issue.
* REMF = Rear Echelon Mo-Fo, a derogatory term for those of rank/leadership in a war who never faced bullets. The term may have started in an earlier war, but it came into wide use in the Vietnam War.
All those who will be convinced by Bundy and his merry little band have been convinced, and all those dead-set against Bundy, his work and his merry little band will never be convinced.
What happens in conflict situations when a true stalemate develops? Let's look at a few conflicts from a historical viewpoint:
WW1: The static warfare of no movement resulted in HUGE casualties, as both sides registered their artillery accurately and emplaced their machine guns carefully to have overlapping fields of fire. The trench systems that resulted killed almost as many troops as the bullets, as the living conditions in them were atrocious. Note that when the USA came into the war, and the allies developed the first tanks, as crude as the tanks were and as green as the American troops were, mobility finally developed, Germany was soon moving backwards, and the war was over within a few months.
WW2: The start of the war. The "sitzkrieg" (translation: "sitting war") developed, as Hitler's army was not prepared to take objectives on two fronts simultaneously. After finishing up in the East by crushing Poland, Hitler was able to bring his forces to bear against Belgium and France, and the Sitzkrieg was soon over and the entire Continent was soon in German hands.
Korea: The stalemate of THAT war of movement only developed when the strong forces of China and the US were limited in their warfare by political concerns. The Democratic Administration of Harry Truman did not want to widen the war with the objective of defeating China, because he feared that the USSR would intervene, with perhaps the use of nuclear weapons. China was limited politically by Russia, who supplied their military hardware and the technicians to run it.
Vietnam: Stalemate developed early, despite the US' development and quick perfection of airmobile envelopment. We owned the day skies, they owned the night ground. That, combined with a Democratic Administration's reluctance to actually win the war, resulted in first, stalemate, then defeat for the USA.
War on Terror: May not even BE winnable, but if it is, we have made no proper moves to win. If you include Desert Storm, yes, we won the battlefield in that limited-objective operation, but no, we failed to consider the role of defeating Saddam himself, so all that brilliant battlefield work went for naught. In today's fighting, 25 years later, we have ZERO desire or strategy to win at all, and lacking such, should not be at war.
Back to Harney County, Oregon.
With stalemate the condition of the conflict, little can be done, and there are signs that the resolve of the militia is weakening. Today's paper mentions that the militia might abandon the Malheur Refuge and move over to Grant County, which puts them 150 miles closer to Portland, which will make the liberals West of the Cascades VERY nervous. Grant County is barely East of the Cascades, and parts of it are less than a two-hour drive from Portland. Imagine the Janet Reno wannabe, Temporary Governor "Korrupt" Kate Brown may get nervous enough to actually employ force against the militia, and if she does, they have won the day, whether they survive, are jailed, or die in battle. Korrupt Krackpot Kate already tried to steamroll the FBI into attacking the militia out in Harney County, but they wisely refused her screamy demands.
Stalemate ALWAYS favors the side with the best logistics, and that is NOT the militia. They have had supply problems since Day One. The FBI knows this. KKKate ought to know this, but she is handicapped in the same way Gauleiter Janet Reno was: they both are gender-confused people.
So now I can scribble my sweet nothings about Saving The Culture again! Oh, goody!
Bragging Humble: Yes it is possible for a little fish in a big ocean to matter, all you have to do is migrate upstream to a smaller water body, to wit:
Gresham, Oregon. I live in the 4th largest city in Oregon, and all of the other Cities bigger than Gresham are far more liberal. Portland being the best example of a lib-town.
Gresham is over 100,000 now, but there are enough conservatives (relatively-speaking, the citizens are "conservatives") living here to actually cause the City Administration and other functionaries of Government to have to plan to accomodate our points of view.
Example: Recently, a wrong-headed school Principal sent a lad home for wearing a tee shirt depicting the "Battlefield Cross", or combination of boots, rifle and helmet that has come to symbolize a soldier who fell in battle, making the ultimate sacrifice for his country. This caused an immediate outrage in Gresham, an outrage which spurred the liberal Oregonian newspaper to opine:
Common sense deficit: The subject of firearms is a sensitive one these days, particularly in schools. Even so, the treatment an eighth-grade student in Gresham’s Dexter McCarty Middle School almost beggars belief. Alan Holmes wore a T-shirt to school last week that featured an image of a rifle. No, Holmes wasn’t wearing promotional NRA gear. On his shirt, rather, was an arrangement of helmet, boots and rifle widely used to indicate respect for fallen soldiers. Lest anyone mistake the arrangement for anything but a memorial, the shirt also read, “Standing for those who stood for us.” Holmes was told that his shirt violated the school’s dress code, The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Laura Frazier wrote. His choices: Change it or go home. He went home, and the district has since promised to review its dress code. We’ll see where that goes. The code, as Frazier reported, prohibits clothing with, among other things, “violence related references.” To cram Holmes’ shirt within this definition is a stretch, to say the least. But if a memorial arrangement that contains a rifle is too disturbing a thing for Gresham’s eighth-graders to witness, district officials might want to reconsider Gresham High School’s fight song too. It begins as follows: “March, march on down the field/ Fighting for Gresham High/We’ll back the blue and white/With the spirit of do or die.” March, fight, do or die. That’s awfully martial. And talk about “violence related references.”
Well, then. If Liberal Portland can opine, conservative Gresham might feel a tad stronger. The Gresham Outlook published my letter on the subject, a letter in which, as a Veteran, I demand redress of insults to me and all local Veterans, as well as the child directly affected. Note how the Editor dressed it up with a bold sidebar of my demands:
Folks, this business of Saving The Culture can get into some conflict. I am laying MY creds on the line here, and demanding, as a citizen, that the culture be protected from the erosion of the faceless liberal zombies. In MY day, this erosion would never have happened, because respect for veterans who fell in battle was automatic, and never questioned. Maybe we can't go all the way back to that time, but we can and MUST demand the respect due our heroes of war.
I am shortly going to have major surgery, and will miss the next meeting of the School Board, in which I would, in the normal course of events, have presented these demands in person. I am working on a surprise for the School Board, though, and my message should still get through. Let's just say that I am not the only Grumpy Major in these parts, and two others ought to be there in my stead at the meeting on November 5th. Thanks to the magic of You Tube, I might be there myself...more later when I get that video up.
Various loosely-connected groups, most connected only by the fact that they have standardized their armaments, have announced that they will "Defend Roseburg" when POTUS makes his "sell the angst" trip there tomorrow.
Ummmm, okay then. Since the groups are using military terms, and will be armed with military-looking weapons (which they prefer to carry openly, don'tcha know), let's consider their operation from a military perspective (because you can be sure that the Secret Service and Homeland Security will).
A military operation is always preceded by an operations plan. Other than "show up", "Defend" has given adherents few instructions which could be considered part of an op-plan. One must presume that the "Defend" leaders will assign protest locations, etc, on the fly as their folks show up. This operation looks very un-military.
A military operation generally is led by leaders who have had experience leading other operations. There are two possibilities to consider here: Bundy Ranch and Sugar Pine Mine. Both of those operations were carried out by coalitions of Constitutionalists, with the organization Oath Keepers being the glue that held the outfit together. Let's look at Oath Keepers, shall we?
Oath Keepers started out about ten years ago (or that's when I became aware of them). Initially, they had one mission, to remind members of the military and police departments of their duty to their Constitution, and to do this, they promulgated a list of the "Ten Orders we must never obey". I signed their pledge, as did a number of my police buddies of the time. The Ten Orders are obvious, because they would be the orders of a dictator to facilitate a dictatorial coup d'etat and suspension of the Constitution. I still believe in Oath Keepers' proscription of those Ten Orders.
Then "mission creep" happened at Oath Keepers. The outfit decided to assume Militia duties.
Bundy Ranch happened, then Sugar Pine Mine, and at the last one, the Oath Keepers appeared as a Militia from the start, and carried out an armed Militia operation, holding ground by force of arms. They never exchanged fire in either of their operations, but they were very well prepared to. They had good discipline and were "well-regulated" in the full sense of the term.
While I was encouraged by Oath Keepers' obvious good discipline in their first two Militia operations, what they did in both cases amounted to a staring contest, and the Federal forces blinked first, both times.
Oath Keepers is still not proven under fire.
They might get that chance, though, and within 24 hours, in Roseburg, Oregon. In case Oath Keepers hasn't employed any intelligence for their operation, I will give them the benefit of mine, which in the past, has involved working directly with the Secret Service's Presidential Protection Detail. I have actually gotten to inspect the Presidential vehicles and talk with the Special Agent In Charge of that unit (at the time, he was a good friend of the family).
The intel nugget for Oath Keepers: This will NOT be a Bundy Ranch or Sugar Pine Mine. You will NOT be dealing with some over-promoted BLM Enforcement Supervisor and his storm troopers. You will be dealing with the Presidential Protection Detail, which just happens to be the best at what they do of any such units. This Detail also has wide latitude to employ deadly force in the protection of the President. They do not have to issue deadly force warnings. If they detect a threat to the POTUS, they will shoot first, and they will kill. Period. End of story.
If the Detail has to employ deadly force against Oath Keepers, you can bet that every one who ever had the first contact with them will be heavily interrogated. I expect to be contacted in that instance, myself. The organization WILL be taken apart, and that will be the end of THAT story.
If you plan to travel to Roseburg tomorrow, here is the best advice from a freedom-loving patriot: Stay home. Don't loan your car to anyone to travel there, either. We patriots do have a mission which might eventually result in our defending our Constitution by force of arms.
Roseburg is not that mission. Oath Keepers may not be that militia, either. This could easily be their "bridge too far".
On 9-11-01, 19 un-noticeable radical Islamic men hijacked 4 aircraft and kicked off a serious war with the USA. We have fought that war, even though our current President won't even call it a war, ever since. Introspection and history reveals that we should have been fighting it a lot sooner.
In most terror-related events since 9-11-01, we have seen terrorists express their Islamic fanaticism in stereotypical ways (shouting "Allahu Akbar"), while dressed and even armed stereotypically. The terrorists want us to see their evil side, the better to strike fear into our hearts.
Suppose, for a moment, that there ARE some smart terrorists leading Islam's war with the West, and they recognize the political fact that with Obama and the Left, Islam has an opportunity of winning it's war with the West faster*, but to gain that advantage, they would have to end the practice of in-our-face-jihad, because the images of jihad give us a mental picture of who to hate. Would they change their tactics to suit the political reality here?
How do we fight this war if the terrorists hide among us and don't show themselves until they strike?
Short answer: with great difficulty, given the present leadership. We have to re-think strategies and tactics ourselves, because in reality, what difference does it make if we lose our war to radical Islam or lose a war to a Socialist dictatorship? Liberty is gone in both cases.
The answer for us is to raise our personal levels of awareness, raise our personal levels of combat-readiness, and sell these higher levels of conflict-consciousness to the less-committed at every turn.
What if there had been a couple of trained concealed-weapons carriers in that Roseburg classroom? What if the de jure State position allowing campus concealed carry did translate to the de facto side and the campuses were forced to accept that? School shootings end when the campuses are properly armed. Israel proved that over 40 years ago.
*Obama is losing the war for us, quickly. Ineffective military leadership from a de-professionalized and hyper-politicized military, deliberately pushing group-weakness over individual personal strengths (the rise of the gimme-gimme class), disarming veterans (the very people who, given a weapon, are the most likely to use it successfully against the enemy), all of these are war-losing strategies, not war-winning strategies.
This article is fashioned around a claim by Oregon's junior Senator that the mere discussion of Congress shutting down the government via failure to approve a higher borrowing limit will cause the US Dept of Agriculture to have to stop reloading the Free Shit Army's S.N.A.P. "food stamp" cards*.
Last I checked, the October 1 expiration of the borrowing limit is a hard and fast date, and spending may continue right up to September 30, at eleven-fifty-nine pm. The "threat" of Congress failing to do anything carries no weight, only the actual carrying-out of such a threat is cause for concern.
Merkely, you are an asshole.
By the way, Mister Senator-Jerk, your use of the term "food insecurity" carries no weight, either. For those who have had to miss a meal, actual hunger is a real bother, but the "feeling" associated with "worrying about hunger" has no effect on a rational, self-disciplined human being. You either eat or you are hungry. If you are eating, you aren't hungry.
Note that the article says that the Jerk is the Democrat's honcho on food issues. I have a litmus test for Mister Jerk: if you ARE the honcho, how about writing some rules so that S.N.A.P. cards can only be used to buy actual nutritious food? No Twinkies, no McDonald's fat-bombs, no sodas, no candy bars, just real food, like economical cuts of meat, poultry, fish and blocks of cheese, to name a few basics. There are probably no more than 50 items in a grocery store that ought to be on S.NA.P., the rest of it can be classed as un-necessary to a survival assistance program.
* The S.N.A.P. card replaced Food Stamps a decade or so ago, but severe "mission creep" has set in with this supposedly-basic welfare program. The program was designed to simply fill grocery bags for impoverished persons, and fill them with nutritious food, much of which was USDA surplus food back in the '60's when the program started. Today, you can eat at restaurants on S.N.A.P. This is wrong. The program needs to be returned to it's original mission.
It's simply secession. Yep, in most political unions, some would say ALL political unions, there lies a process for breaking up a nation into subordinate parts. If the process is followed carefully, which it usually isn't, the parent nation has to go along, or get sanctioned by the larger union for breaking it's constitution. If the process isn't delineated in a political union, armed revolution will arise to serve as the process for political change.
This has happened before. World War One happened because the make-up of the Austria-Hungarian Empire, composed of smaller states allied under an Emperor. Some of the Empire's smaller states decided that they had had enough of Empire, and two of the populations rebelled (Serbia and Montenegro). In an attempt to hold everything together, the Austria-Hungarian military empire was stressed past the breaking point, and all the delicate treaties with the other Empires of the day fell apart, with the geopolitical situation devolving into war.
Democratic Socialism, as an organized movement, was born in the populist sweeping-aside of the old Empires of Europe. It has had a century to establish itself as the model of politics in Europe, but it has never gotten a popular hold on the Continent. The European Union, the Socialist super-government which was supposed to hold all the various Socialist nations together, has utterly failed to stamp out the nationalism of and in the individual countries, and the economic demise of several of the weaker members has accelerated the process of EU decline. Some members, such as Greece, are happy with cradle-to-grave Socialism and are determined to keep it, even at the cost of their economies, and some members, like Spain, seem to be okay with re-drawing the borders and letting the recalcitrant regions slip away.
Neither of these two approaches is logical. The smart play would be for the EU to hold a convention of members, agree to end the first Union, and draw up another. The Second Union would have to give new nods to member nationalism, and it would have to allow members to establish their own currencies again. The next Union would become more of an alliance than a super-nation which it is now. The Europeans are good at Conventions. They love to design them, hold them and will usually agree to be bound by their diktats, so an EU2 is easily doable.
Okay, that is the lesson for today, Students.
Here is your homework: prepare a short paper to compare and contrast the devolution process now underway in Europe, to the American political process. Opinions of conclusion are encouraged in your summaries.
Thank you for your attention in today's class.
/the Perfesser closes his books, loosens his tie and sits back for his usual, enjoyable five minutes with the brighter students who hang around after lecture/
...and the door WILL hit him in the ass, but not soon enough to keep him from caving the House in to Obama on the Planned Parenthood de-funding vote. He was going to be unable to resist a vote on his speakership, which he would have lost.
A letter from about a week ago. The Boregonian only publishes about 6-8 letters per week, because they are a minimalist cage-liner these days. This letter likely will not make it into print.
Our ruling elites have, in their infinite wisdom, accepted the public risks associated with granting legality to another intoxicating substance, cannabis, and they say they did this out of an abundance of concern for progress in individual liberty.
Why do these same ruling elites then turn around and force onerous restrictions on another public risk, that of keeping and bearing firearms, the risks of which are already accepted by being firmly enshrined in our Bill of Rights?
I must have skipped the section in our Constitution which permits our elites the use of illogic, hypocrisy AND the denial of civil rights.
If you are a sailor (sailboat sailor, not a Navy Swabbie), you will recognize the title. It is the mariner's way of expressing complete frustration with something. Of course, you CAN'T piss up a rope, something about gravity getting in the way of that.
One might surmise that any mariner who actually TRIED to piss up a rope once wouldn't try it again (unless said mariner liked the idea of "golden showers"), would use the scuppers instead or just hang it over the side and let fly, but then that would fail to account for STUPID.
Our Congress is Stupid, and they are about to Piss up a Rope again, the rope being trying to end or damage the right of women to control their own fertility, by aborting foetuses if necessary. The last time I saw a stat on this, 70 percent of US adults supported this right, as it came into being in the SCOTUS case of Roe v. Wade. It is NOT often that 70% of US adults agree on ANYTHING with political overtones.
The political Right has this Albatross around it's neck, and that albatross is the Religious Right, composed almost entirely of evangelical Christians. These Christians firmly believe that abortion is morally wrong, and ought to be made legally wrong again. Since they will never get anything stricter than the Hyde Amendment past a liberloon President like Obanana, one would think that they would stop trying, but they won't stop, because they are STUPID.
Here's my take: I am personally (morally) opposed to the very idea of abortion on several grounds, but I am opposed to Establishing Christianity (or any other religion) into our Constitution even more. Putting a religious idea such as a foetus being viable from conception into our law-books is strictly forbidden by our Constitution. Sure, let's have a debate to settle when a foetus can generally be considered viable (via scientific process), and give the foetus "person-hood" protection at that point, but that point is not now, nor ever will be, conception.
GOP, quit pissing up this rope. It could, and maybe SHOULD, cost you your majority if you try.