Month: January 2016

It’s another sad day in Amerika.  Of course, some of us will be sadder than others at the news that the Malheur confrontation was forcibly broken by government troops, with resulting loss of life and injury among the protesters.

I’m sad because lives were lost.  The government seems unable to end any disagreement without casualties among the opposition.  Of course, we do not have all the details — and possibly never will — but it is certain that there were casualties.

I’m sad because the protesters, whether or not intentionally, created an atmosphere of confrontation that encouraged the use of force on the part of government troops (not that they seem to need much encouragement these days).

I’m sad because the protester killed was the father of 11 and grandfather of 19. I’m sad because either he felt it necessary to lay down his life to make his point, or he was targeted because of or in spite of his situation.

I’m sad because the media, the government, and to some degree the protesters themselves dissembled and distorted the details of the situation, presumably to achieve an ulterior motive.  The issue at hand was immediately obscured and deflected by all concerned.

I’m sad because there are indications that citizens in the area allowed themselves to be swayed by government and media propaganda, such that they believe there were dangers that probably never existed.

I’m sad that the state of law enforcement is such that every “situation” becomes a crisis that justifies the use of equipment and technology so thoughtfully provided by the “1033 Program”, said provision and use neither necessarily justified nor beneficial.

I’m sad that every politician, elected official, government bureaucrat, and member of the “patriot movement” for miles around seems to have seized on the event to further an irrelevant agenda.

I’m sad that the concept of “government land” is allowed to exist, without constitutional authority or consent of the involved states.

Last of all, I’m sad for the family of the slain and wounded.  These casualties, whether for a valid cause, or whether a result of government necessity, are one more indicator of the deteriorating condition of our society.  Sadly, we seem to be either unable or unwilling to do anything about it, short of writing more sad stories like this one.

I really didn’t want to do a piece on Campain (sic) 2016.  But this sprang up in my mind today, and what the heck, everybody else is, so why not I?  Submitted for your amusement, a wallet-sized snapshot of the key platform elements for (most of) the pResidential candidates.  I tried my best to be brief on each, but some folks just rate a more thorough scouring.  To the candidates whom I left out … try to statist harder.  Maybe you’ll make it next time.

---

Jeb:  “I am not my brother.  Think of me as more like McCain … or Romney.  As far as my specific positions, look, stuff happens.  Things happen all the time.  Things.  Is that better?”

Ben: “Maybe.  Possibly.  I am thinking seriously about things.  I have not yet fully fleshed out my policies.  This isn’t any evolution of my views, just that I’ve learned how to express myself.”

Chris: “I fixed New Jersey’s economy so well that the state’s credit rating was only downgraded nine times during my reign.  And we’re still ahead of Illinois!  Mary Jane is a gateway drug and, if elected, I will rid the states of it root and stem.  I don’t need anything that gives me the munchies.”

Ted: “I’m bullish on killing.  Well, not babies.  But all other criminals, terrorists, and bad guys.  I strongly defend golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads.”

Rand: “I’m a Republican.  I’m a conservative.  I’m a Tea Partyer.  I’m a libertarian.  You name it, I can be it.  Except my Dad.  I can not be my Dad.  I oppose government control … except where it suits my purposes.  I think we can have most things both ways.”

Marco: “I am more conservative than anybody, but I support immigration reform, especially for my parents.  I dispute climate change science, but I have no problem with the Pope’s support for it.”

Donald: “It is wrong that a rich person can have more influence than people without money.  That’s why I’m financing my own campaign.  I beat other nations economically all the time, and as pResident I’ll do the same.  I oppose immigration reform unless I’m ‘H2B-ing’ them.  I don’t believe all gun owners should be punished for the acts of a few individuals, but I think we should ban all Muslims.  I support traditional marriage to hot young chicks.  I want people to be guessing … I don’t want people to figure it out. I don’t want people to know what my plan is. I have plans. I have plans! But I don’t want to do it.”

Hillary: “I’m a proven commodity.  I’ve been First Lady twice and have guided my husband through many tight (and some loose) situations.  I have been a Senator and almost served two terms before destiny called me.  I have been Secretary of State and had a thinly disguised TV series made about that.  By the way, there are two other TV dramas based on me as well, so there’s that as well.  I’ve declared war on the billionaire class … at least until we’re no longer poorer than that.  I have bigger balls than any Republican war-monger … and I’ve killed more people than they have.  I’m more conservative than any Republican, and more progressive than any Democrat.”

Bernie: “I am not a socialist.  I do not want to replace capitalism.  I just want the government to regulate every aspect of it.  I want to rebuild America’s job base by rebuilding muh roads.  Oh yeah … and free stuff for everyone.”

Martin: “If you like the political climate in Baltimore and in Maryland, you’ll love what I’m going to give the United States.”

For my first post of this calendar year, I address the so-called “Oregon Standoff”.  (Why not?  Everybody else already has.)

It might seem that every aspect of the situation has been covered to excess … and I’d be the first to agree.  And yet, we know very little about the reality of the situation.  And if you’re looking for clarification, you might as well move on now.

I confess to being perplexed by almost every facet of this debacle.  I felt confident in my position of support for the Bundys and their opposition to the BLM.  I felt confident in the information I was getting from sources I trusted. Generally speaking, I do not have that sense regarding the Hammonds.

Given my strongly held feelings about being governed, my inclination in situations like this is to always side with the anti-government position.  However.  My nonarchist tendencies do not extend to actions that appear randomly violent, overly aggressive, or self-serving.  Some parties involved in the Hammond case give off a fairly strong whiff of some or all of those attributes.

For example, what does the occupation of portions of the Malheur refuge have to do with anything?  Is it just me, or does it look a lot like an attempt to replicate the Ruby Ridge / Waco standoff situations?  Well, clearly it’s not just me because some members of the groups opposed to trends in federal government are questioning the occupation in rather strong terms.  It is hard to ignore the possibility of a false flag operation, designed by the feds to marginalize gun owners, agrarians, opponents of federal bureaucracies, III%ers, and others in the loose confederation some call the Liberty Movement.

On the other hand, those generally opposed to the occupation are seizing on every tangential meme available: racism, anti-Muslim sentiment, domestic terrorism … and snacks.  One (admittedly ill-conceived) statement has produced a huge wave of scorn over the occupiers request for snacks.  The level of vitriol is remarkable for both its inanity and its irrelevance.

Meanwhile, government, showing its infinite patience with its wayward children (yeah, right), is basically doing nothing.  In other words, they’re riding the wave of divisive rhetoric for their own purposes.  What actions will issue as a result of the confrontation remain to be seen.  What ongoing actions will be ratcheted up, using the confrontation as justification, also remain to be seen.

Honestly, my concern here is that otherwise good people will be tarred by the brush that is the Oregon Standoff, to their detriment and the detriment of others like them.  This is rapidly becoming “a house divided against itself”, and I can’t stand it.