When activist movements enter into confrontation with a corrupt government or establishment structure, often the temptation is to stick rather closely to what they know. The problem with this is that even though circumstances change and the fighting escalates, people will still turn to their old standby methods for defending themselves. This makes these movements repetitive, predictable and ineffective.
In the case of the liberty movement, the more passive tactic of marches and sign waving is immediately suggested. But inevitably some hothead is going to demand one of two things: a mass armed surge on the steps of Washington, D.C., or some kind of Alamo-inspired cinematic standoff. You would think that these strategies were the only two aggressive methods in existence; they are brought up so often it becomes mind-numbing.
I can understand (to a point) why the standoff concept keeps popping up. The movement has seen it work at least once at Bundy ranch. However, Bundy ranch came with a very specific set of circumstances that made the standoff strategy useful. The ranch was private property owned by freedom-minded people; it was a home being invaded by federal agents exhibiting intent to do physical harm and confiscate the livelihood of those in their crosshairs. Whether or not people agreed with the grazing rights issues that originally triggered the standoff, no one with any moral fortitude could deny that the Fed response was unacceptable.
The standoff had DIRECT strategic value to the situation; it had a concrete purpose, which was to stop the federal incursion, prevent harm to the people involved and prevent further theft of property. The liberty movement also had the most important advantage of all: We were INVITED to make a stand there, and many of the locals supported our initiatives.
If all of these elements are not present in any given situation, then the standoff method is a pointless and foolish endeavor. It ultimately does more harm than good.
To argue the nature of the cause does little to change the strategic reality. We can wax philosophical all day on the nature of federal overreach and the train of abuses suffered by common people. We can preach passionately about the villainy of the Bureau of Land Management and the need for its erasure. We can discuss endlessly the nature of patriotism and duty and the will to do what is right or necessary. It is a fine thing to clarify your standing on the issues in the face of ideological opposition from statists whose only interest is to blindly support the power of federal government because they believe they benefit from the existing system. That said, in the end, strategy is not subject to emotional arguments.
Some methods are going to work, and others are definitely not going to work. And no amount of pride or fear or moral outrage or tears or indignant, reactionary thinking is going force bad strategies to become good strategies.
If you do not have an intelligent plan behind your actions, then your actions are pointless and doomed to failure. There is no way around this.
The argument has come up over and over again in the face of the recent Oregon standoff that any action is better than no action. I disagree. All actions have consequences. And if you are not patient enough to weigh the good consequences with the bad consequences, then you should not be taking action at all. Period. This is one of the few weaknesses of a leaderless movement like the liberty movement; when crisis strikes, hotheads forget the “leaderless” part and proclaim themselves the “tip of the spear.” Sadly, parts of the movement gravitate toward these hotheads because they see it as easier to be told what to do. And generally, hotheads make terrible leaders and inadequate tacticians. Disaster is usually the result.
As I outlined in “Internal War Is Now On The Horizon For America,” anyone demanding support from the liberty movement must be willing and able to give a logical and practical analysis of why their strategy is the right one. Emotionally manipulative arguments and attempts to shame people into participation are not the right way to go. The burden of proof is on them, not you.
I am not here to ask for anyone’s support. I have put forward my concepts for non-participation and self-defense for years, and I have been enacting those strategies within my own community with success. I have been told many accounts of other people doing the same.
But if situations like Oregon are to escalate, I can see no other option but to offer alternative strategies that would work far better than the standoff model. All of these strategies are hypothetical in nature, and I am not responsible if any of them are applied in the real world. In this hypothetical analysis, I am not necessarily concerned with questions of “legality,” only questions of morality. There are often vast differences between that which is legal and that which is moral. I am also not interested in the arguments of statists who claim that the federal government’s jurisdiction is sacrosanct. Clearly, even if that were true, I do not care.
The following is a short list of methods that could be used effectively to remove federal presence from Western lands. None of these methods require directed violence, only self-defense if activists are attacked.
Empowering Locals
There is a plague within the liberty movement called the “sheepdog” mentality. The overall attitude by the pro-Oregon standoff crowd has been driven by this mentality. The sheepdog ideal is that some people are simply born helpless, and some are born with strength. That is to say, the locals in Oregon are seen as sheep, while Ammon Bundy and his associates see themselves as protectors (sheepdogs) that must travel from across the country to the rescue. The problem with this attitude is that it breeds arrogance and prevents the empowerment of locals.
If you are an outsider arriving in all your bluster to pat the little people on the head and treat them like children, then you will be seen as an unwanted carpetbagger. This is exactly what has happened in Harney County, Oregon, as the locals have released a statement asking Bundy to leave while they handle their own conflict with the Feds.
I applaud this mindset. You cannot help people that do not want your help. This is the bottom line. All you can do is offer your assistance or offer to make those people more effective in fighting back.
Oath Keepers has presented a standing offer to the people of Harney County to send Community Preparedness Teams to train locals so that they can handle their own problems. This should be done across the nation, but ONLY where the locals have asked for such aid. Militias and other groups cannot possibly hope to project to every single place where there is conflict with the Feds; they can only prepare local people to take charge whenever possible. Treating them like children solves nothing.
Removing Federal Footprint
If you are facing off against an opponent vastly superior in arms and resources, then asymmetric tactics are the only way to win. And asymmetric tacticians recoil in horror at the very mention of a static position ending in a standoff scenario. This is the exact opposite of an effective plan, and smart rebellions avoid these situations at all costs unless there is considerable public support and a clear symbolic and psychological advantage to holding that piece of land.
Standoffs leave all initiative in the hands of the opponent. He decides how he is going to hit you and when. He has all the time in the world. He decides perimeter; he decides whether or not you receive further resources; and he can even determine the kind of information the public receives on the standoff itself if you have not thought ahead and established off-grid, long-range communications. It’s a dumb strategy.
I would first ask: What is the point of holding the ground that you are on? If there are no direct advantages except to thumb your nose at the Feds, then you are involved in a pointless exercise.
If you want to present a real threat to federal presence on Western lands, then why not remove their facilities one by one? Why not move in quickly, bulldoze the damn buildings into the dirt (there should be no people in them, of course), and then walk away? If this were done at numerous BLM sites across the country, their ability to remain active on these lands would be greatly hindered. Bureaucrats need their offices.
This is the same strategy the Founding Fathers used against the British; they attacked symbols of oppression as well, but they did not stick around like idiots afterward. When the Sons of Liberty dumped British tea into Boston harbor, they did not then take over the merchant ships screaming: “Come and get us!” No, they wore disguises, did what mattered and then left.
Helping Locals Use Resources
A major point of contention between rural populations in the West and the federal government is the use of land to aid local economies. Because of draconian BLM and Environmental Protection Agency regulations and heavy-handed treatment, rural towns and counties are stifled in the use of the resources right under their own feet and around their very heads. This has resulted in the near collapse of rural economies, creating populations almost entirely dependent on the federal government for welfare and a minimum of jobs. It would appear to me that the goal of the Feds is, in fact, to make sure that rural people never achieve any kind of industrial independence again. So what is the solution?
Ignore federal obstructions and build industry anyway.
If a town or county wanted to actually save its economy from a steady downward spiral, if they asked for help, then the liberty movement could provide security while it rebuilds. For example, if a community that once relied on responsible logging is being strangled by the Feds, we prevent obstruction while the locals begin logging again. As stated earlier, this requires that the locals want aid. It is also the only instance in which holding a semi-static position makes sense. Saving a community from financial despair and welfare dependency is something I can believe in. Holding a meaningless piece of land with no tangible direct benefits to the community? I can’t put much faith in that idea, and most of the country will not buy into it either.
If a movement is going to take action, then it must be intelligently planned and executed. Being mindless and reactionary is often romanticized as if it is “decisive.” It is anything but. If the goal is to win, then staging one Alamo after another is not the best method. I fight to win, and so do many in the movement. The best way to win is not just to fight but to fight smart. As statists are happy to constantly remind us, the odds are already well against us. Intelligent strategy evens out all odds.
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
written by helot , January 13, 2016
I've only just now read some of the untold background about the ranchers in that area and what's been going on. It's flat out bizarre how the government has run things.
What was even more surprising to me was how inaccurately a great many know-it-alls on various websites have portrayed the ranchers position, reducing it all down to nothing more than ranchers grazing cattle without paying for it, as if it were All about ripping off the taxpayers - when, in fact - there's much more to the story than that.
Oregon Standoff: Federal Land Grab vs. the Sagebrush Rebellion
Joel Skousen - January 09, 2016
http://www.garynorth.com/public/14709.cfm
I hope everyone walks away peacefully from this mess and finds a good solution.
written by Pablo , January 13, 2016
this standoff is almost gone from the public limelight, as the world moves onto more interesting events.
I like the picture of David vs Goliath, but I don't think David/Amon will get a chance to throw the first stone.
The whole event has been poorly planned, and non of the participants are able to convey the message. They don't seem to have a good media presence, which is mandatory in today's world of instant communication.
If this group expected to change anything, they would at least have to file a suit against the govt. to be able to effect the change they want to see.
a moniker like Bundy V. BLM or some sort of action using the pen, could be a much stronger rallying point for the liberty movement, than this slow motion stand off.
Instead, we will soon forget the issues brought up and only remember that you can't fight when you are cornered and outnumbered.
We will also learn that the govt. is vindictive and carries a grudge, when this is over, and some politically appointed DA lodges some serious federal charges against the group.
who will be standing with Amon when he is charged with sedition? who will want to be associated with the repercussion of taking on Goliath?
written by andysloan , January 13, 2016
Wisdom 6:1
"Wisdom is better than strength, and a wise man is better than a strong man."
written by Seen2013 , January 13, 2016
"The argument has come up over and over again in the face of the recent Oregon standoff that any action is better than no action."
Movements tend to have limited psychology and man-power and resources. Once those are exhausted, the movement dies.
"But inevitably some hothead is going to demand one of two things: a mass armed surge on the steps of Washington, D.C., or some kind of Alamo-inspired cinematic standoff."
To cut to the chase:
"Being mindless and reactionary is often romanticized as if it is “decisive.”"
Both DC and Alamo styled standoffs deplete the psychological resolve and resources as well as man-power of the movement. The Liberty Movement's psychology, resources, and man-power are well documented. In fact, as one Whistleblower stated, 'he is avoiding ex-agency self-sufficient communities as he believes they'll be targeted' Add that to an arm of DHS trained like death squads and have gone silent for alleged training months prior to Jade Helm, I am compelled to agree.
This is not romanticizing; it is at best letting fear, pride, gluttony, and vanity pervert your ability to evaluate the picture and come up with a strategy and tactics to achieve it.
No matter how Ammon Bundy's Oregon Standoff ends; it ends badly as guilty by association is the only component not entirely entrenched in Guilty Until Proven Innocent in a manner acceptable by the populace. One tool Tyrants have used for centuries is 'just because they have accepted becoming martyrs or whatever fate comes does not mean their associates have'.
No, I'm afraid Constitutionalists, Liberty movement, Gun owners, Second Amendment supporters, and etc are not the catalyst preventing Soft Tyranny from turning hard.
No, it's not because they can continue placating the masses as they have. Considering, the fact they want to re-instituting 1906-1960 population control, and they've made it clear that they largely find us stupid, disgusting, animals, and etc...
The fact is that we're nearing the 10% estimate that becomes a threat to their ambitions of Absolute Authority, if you're placating rather than jerking the chains, you do not have absolute authority...
I'm thinking that Ammon Bundy and crew's best case outcome is a Waco II. Their worst case scenario is being charged as sovereign citizens. Before those of you who'd celebrate that does, sovereign citizen today is a legality term meaning stateless person much like terrorists operating on a nation's soil. The purpose is in today's legality means that they are not subject to due processes or the Geneva Convention. This means Tyrants can NDAA them and conduct 'enhanced interrogations', and they can utilize any guilty by association to attain confessions linking groups to terrorists or foreign Astrotruf/Insurgency.
The more I think about; the more I'm thinking that they'll declare them stateless.
written by coyote , January 13, 2016
Brandon- one of the best things you have written: "ignore federal obstructions and build industry anyway." Rural Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Be damned to the tyrants. The first people we will have to fight will be the enviro-wacks who moved here to save the scenery; they are all statists of first water.
written by Marcus Vince , January 14, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJhgv6pJDjY&list=TLGybIBxaAYFgxNDAxMjAxNg
written by Chaban , January 14, 2016
Are you sticking by your analysis that the powers that be want to crash this thing?
It seems to me they are back to their old ways of jawboning the market, via "impromptu" FED head statements.
Ant they already are hinting at a possible QE4.
written by Brandon Smith , January 14, 2016
@Chaban
If you are referring to Bullard's comments, he never mentioned QE4. Have you not been paying attention to oil and shipping markets the past year? They cannot "jawbone" real demand back from the depths they have already fallen. Beyond that, Fed officials are openly admitting that there will be a stock market crash due to Fed manipulation:
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2779-fed-official-confesses-fed-rigged-stock-market-crash-certain
Foreign central banks are also saying 2016 will be a crisis year:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/12/investing/markets-sell-everything-cataclysmic-year-rbs/
Even if there was a QE4, it would not matter. We have been in the middle of a depression since 2008, and it is about to get worse.
written by Chaban , January 14, 2016
He did not say it out right, but it was hinted out, the way it's always been done.
I know they cannot jawbone real demand, but they certainly can jawbone equity markets, as clearly demonstrated yet again this morning. And given the level of financiarization of the U.S. Economy, it's the only thing that matter anyway.
I mean, the reversal today may be one of the most spectacular of the last seven years. And that's saying something. So, my question is, why would they stick save the markets the way the did this morning? (Equities were deep in the red before Bullard).
As for oil, they can ramp it up as easily as they brought it down.
In fact, I am wonder if perhaps all the powers that be, from east and west, have not reached an agreement to ramp it's price back up as it benefits everybody (generates for demand for US $$$ and increases revenues for producers).
Just a few observations....
I am actually with you on the false west vs. east dichotomy. And I look forward to your next update on this kabuki theater, as to me it is much for interesting than the Oregon situation... to me that's almost a non-event.
By the way, I'm sure you have notice Putin's sudden different tune when it comes to Assad and Syria....
Thanks for the great articles you share with us.
written by Chaban , January 14, 2016
Sorry for all the typos, etc.
Typing on an annoying iPad.
I wish there were a way to edit postings.
written by Brandon Smith , January 14, 2016
@Chaban
All he said was oil "has to hit a bottom sometime". That's about it. I would not call that a hint at QE4. I would point out that Bullard's original "hint" at QE4 in 2014 where he actually mentioned renewed stimulus ended up being a wash, as the Fed is now raising rates (and they will continue to do so despite volatility).
ONE UP DAY of a little over 200-250 points so far out of a long string of bloodletting is not jawboning the markets up. I think people need to look at the overall trend, not just the day to day market. Every single indicator including stocks is exhibiting crash behavior. Stocks are of secondary importance to the rest of the economy.
During the Depression, there were far larger reversals in stocks triggered by economic talking heads, that did not change the ultimate end.
As far as oil goes, there is NO WAY they can manipulate prices back up when there is nowhere to store the oil. Simply impossible. The only things that could cause an oil spike at this time are:
1) An Iran/Saudi war in the Middle East, which would cause markets to crash anyway.
2) The collapse of the dollar's petrostatus, which could very well happen, but again, markets would crash anyway.
This is the final leg down. There is no way around it. The Bullard "bounce" today will be short lived and we will see stocks declining in volatility yet again. Count on it.
written by Chaban , January 14, 2016
So you think they will continue to raise rates?
written by liberal , January 14, 2016
I'm not so sure the Lake Malheur occupiers aren't accomplishing anything. Like most everybody else, two Saturday nights ago my reaction was whaat the hellll are they DOING??? But the longer this goes on and nothing happens, I'm wondering if there isn't a small amount of (perhaps unintended) genius in this. They DO continue to get attention, the story has NOT disappeared in any media that is not intended for idiots (admittedly that is a small percentage, but what good is attention from idiots?) and knowledge of what was done to the Hammonds has exploded, and that story is profoundly sickening to anyone worthy of citizenship in any decent society. The facility being an empty nothing in the middle of nowhere and worthless, while puzzling as a target at first, could have a very big advantage, in that no one but a bloodthirsty fascist psychopath could make an argument that it is worth bloodshed retaking it as long as they just sit there threatening no one and nothing. And they longer they sit there peacefully, the more idiotic and deranged the people in the cities screaming "terrorists!" appear to anyone with a functioning mind. One by one the remaining functioning minds may be starting to ask themselves questions about what has become "normal" in the nation. The oddness of the occupation may buy it time, and time may be to it's advantage.
As far as the "locals" are concerned, that question needs to be broadened to a perspective beyond just Harney County. The Hammonds were railroaded and taken as political prisoners because a federal agency went on a vendetta against them and a federal court enabled and supported that. It could have been ANY federal agency, and ANY federal court against ANYONE. The federal prosecutors and judge are from Portland, Eugene and Salem. And came to Harney County, attacked the Hammonds, and the locals stand by in silence because of fear and dependence. Like everywhere else more than half of them are dependent on the federal government. Since federal agency dictatorship destroyed all the industry in that area, those federal agencies are now the largest remaining employers. And that sheriff is a BLM stooge. There is more to it than whether or not the people in Harney County support the occupiers. If federal power can come into a community and commit the atrocity they did to Steve and Dwight Hammond, pillars of the community who could spend more than a million dollars on legal defense, than no one anywhere is safe. We are all "the locals."
written by Brandon Smith , January 14, 2016
@Liberal
Yes, definitely more attention has been brought to the Hammond case, but that could have been achieved numerous other more practical ways. Also, from a strategic standpoint, Bundy's plan is simply two-dimensional and very poorly put together. It would seem that his original plan (to keep the Hammonds out of jail in a standoff fashion) fell through, and then he stuck to the plan anyway, but with no Hammonds and no directed goal.
If he really believes holding a meaningless static position in a shoebox will force the feds to give up "all lands they hold in the west" as he has demanded, then he is truly delusional. And, as far as public perception is concerned, most people including the Oregon locals see him as a carpetbagger or an aggressor, which is the complete wrong foot to start off a rebellion.
written by helot , January 14, 2016
"Most of the high-profile "trends in the news" tend to support the centralizing of power and authority.
And this is how we arrived at the conclusion that the House of Saud was deemed expendable. It is the necessary supporter of the dollar reserve currency and if it vanishes, the dollar is weakened and globalism strengthened." ...
http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/36735/Saudi-Arabia-The-Meme-Expands/
written by liberal , January 15, 2016
Brandon Smith
You are correct in all you have written except possibly your last sentence.
I am an Oregon local, and I can tell you it is the urban media here, their corporate/government overseers, and those who benefit from the two who see the Lake Malheur protestors as carpetbaggers or aggressors. The people here who I know that produce and live within their means are silently disgusted. And not with Bundy.
Opportunities are sometimes where we make them. And sometimes they are where we find them.
written by Brandon Smith , January 15, 2016
@Liberal
The Harney committee of safety has drafted a letter asking Bundy to leave so that they can handle the Feds themselves. I also have connections with people on the ground in Harney County; most of them do not want Bundy there. They agree that the Hammonds have been railroaded, I feel the same. But they also realize the foolishness of Bundy's strategy.
There are opportunities and then there are blunders. One can sometimes look like the other. Knowing which is which is what makes a leader. I believe time will show that Bundy has set the stage for a tragic blunder. If Bundy's goal is to "lead" as the "tip of the spear" then he has already failed in a primary obligation - to recognize his own mistakes and to correct them. It is infinitely more difficult for the "good guys" to take advantage of a tragedy than it is to take advantage of an opportunity.
written by Seen2013 , January 15, 2016
liberal , January 14, 2016
"But the longer this goes on and nothing happens"
Provided, the fire chief did indeed resign after discovering FBI impersonating militia to harass and intimidate residents; there's definitely deception and intrigue occurring under the surface.
"I'm wondering if there isn't a small amount of (perhaps unintended) genius in this."
The bright side is Native Tribes seemingly have voiced their support against central abuse, but there's a long, long way to go to call this even 'better to be lucky than smart'.
"The facility being an empty nothing in the middle of nowhere and worthless, while puzzling as a target at first, could have a very big advantage, in that no one but a bloodthirsty fascist psychopath could make an argument that it is worth bloodshed retaking it as long as they just sit there threatening no one and nothing."
The establishment is controlled by Psychopaths-Sociopaths. The precise details of public-private partnerships/mergers of Kleptocracy-Plutocracy are effectively irrelevant; historically the only time one sides with 'Liberty Movement' is after they get booted from the power-structure and thus hijacks a secessionist movement...
Clearly, the establishment is attempting to demonize not only Bundy's group, but they are attempting to find ways to destroy the movement without exposing their deceptions to the Liberal movement.
Yes, the left-right paradigm is false, and this largely falls under wedging the Constitutionalist-Liberal Alliance that kept the public-private partnership/mergers at bay for a good long time.
"The oddness of the occupation may buy it time, and time may be to it's advantage."
The only bright side is that it seems Native American Tribes have expressed support against central governance control of lands for the sake of simplicity.
No, traditionally you don't occupy land to buy time unless you're doing so as a distraction or otherwise compelling mobilization against you to build a force capable of countering... To my knowledge, neither is occurring, so it's not buying time while the Bismarkians are being careful not to expose themselves.
I've already seen establishment PR that is just a few short steps from referencing classic movie villain's 'today X, tomorrow the nation, the day after the world', which is also a strategy and tactics doomed to failure.
I'm thinking the Native Tribes expressing support for the general principle is about the only bright side that will come to this.
And, yes 'lets kick it off' under emotional appeal to act without thinking. Ammon Bundy and company seized a Wilflife Refuge today and tomorrow return federal lands to the states is just one itty detail away from the classic doomed to fail movie villain classics.
The big one right now is 'I don't always attempt to overthrew the government But, when I do, it's from a birdcage in the middle of nowhere.'
The general thesis of that is Ammon Bundy and company suffer mental illness or defect also known as feeble-minded. And, the Executive Actions are centrally centered on re-instituting redefined militia and barring access and entry of feeble-minded individuals like it did in 1870-90 and then utilized for population control in 1906-1960...
The groundwork for either path is being laid.
Oh, it gets worse. The Liberal contingent is eating it up, so they don't actually have to Waco II it; it seems many are in favor of feeble-minded being re-institute to protect them from potential mental illness/defect aka feeble-minded from acquiring firearms...
So, they can go either way. Waco II, Stateless, and Feeble-minded are their options. Walking home? It's too late for that.
written by Greg B. , January 17, 2016
I'm pretty sure you've heard about the recent news in Burns about FBI agents disguising themselves as militia members intimidating the townspeople including the firechief and about Brandon Curtiss' having the FBI try to open up negotiations with Ammon and co. Do you belive it was a good idea for him to get them involved?
written by Brandon Smith , January 23, 2016
@Greg
It's hard to say at this point. Strategically, Bundy has kind of screwed us. It's hard to make lemonade out of the piss poor lemons that Ammon has provided in terms of tactical footing and public relations, and Curtiss is probably doing the best he can with what is available. The real question is, is their presence making the situation better or worse. Being objective about that kind of thing is difficult.
They are in the worst possible terrain besides an open Iraqi desert in a weak position and clearly with no competent strategic minds on hand (on the refuge, that is). Two - four trained shooters with FLIR could eliminate most or all of them, maybe even from long range given the wide open spaces involved. And the Fed's are known for overkill in situations like this.
I think as long as Curtiss maintains a "watchman's" posture, ensuring that the feds don't pull a Waco, then his group will be alright. If they were to start operating under the direction of Bundy and friends, however, then they are done for. No matter how competent the men, if the leadership is faulty, they will die.
I would say that the best possible method at this point would be to work AROUND Bundy, and get things done in spite of him rather than with him. He's a disaster waiting to happen.
written by Todd McVay , January 25, 2016
While I agree with much of what you have written, I believe your local "sources" are just wrong with regard to a majority of folks and where they stand on the issue. The local support for the protestors (not Bundy himself) is large and growing. People are realizing this is a much bigger issue and as more of them realize most of the fear mongering is been initiated by the neophyte Sherriff and the County Judge (whose hands are contaminated with behind doors cooperation with a large host of ecoterrorist organizations), folks are beginning to realize where the real threat is coming from. And when a large group of locals was rapidly forming and planning to protest the next rigged "informational meeting," the Judge canceled the meeting. Bad optics for the reporters and film crew that were scheduled to attend.
This further highlights that the Bundy sideshow may have awakened another sleeping giant. As more locals have had enough of the Sheriff's and Judge's king-like decrees and failure to follow Oregon Law or abide by their Constitutional Oaths, the tide is turning and even the anti-Bundy crowd is getting angry that their voices and attempts to have a dialogue on the topic is being stymied at every turn. And thousands of us who grew up in this rural area are rallying our friends and families to use this opportunity to organize and develop strategies to fight back. The longer the standoff lasts, the greater likelihood that what is now sprouting will bear fruit. The other counties around Harney are already much better organized and are fighting back immediate Fed threats to their livelihoods.
And lastly, between the 24/7 live streaming and the many locals and other interested folks visiting the refuge, often late into the night, armed Fed intervention would be almost impossible. Not to mention many of the protestors often travel freely throughout the county, visiting local ranchers, attending church and public meetings. If the Feds could put together a decent set of charges that would matter, most assuredly more than one 62 yr old man, illegally driving a federal vehicle to town for groceries, would have been arrested by now.
written by Brandon Smith , January 26, 2016
@Todd
No, I'm afraid not. We're seeing little to no directed support from the public on the occupation of the refuge, which is what I was referring to; NOT the protest in general.
Also, the Feds have ALLOWED the refuge to remain open for now, but they have numerous assets in place to close it off at any time they wish including cutting web feeds. They are merely biding their time. Though the amount of embarrassment coming out of the Bundy camp may lead the feds to see them as an asset rather than a threat - from Bundy's mother posting grocery lists of french vanilla coffee creamer and slippers, to them publicly complaining about the bag of sex toys they received in the mail, to the recent video of one of the members challenging government officials to a sumo match while he wears a diaper, I am not seeing much to root for from these morons.
Again, anything constructive that does happen will happen in spite of Bundy, not because of him.
written by Zoltanne , January 31, 2016
The Clintons and their mafia-organization, the Clinton Foundation, are heavily involved in the western land grabs. In this instance, they facilitated the sale of uranium ore to Russia.
The NY Times reported this last April and is worth reading to understand how our Nation is being sold and Americans are being raped:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
And this DCClothesline piece sums it up nicely:
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/01/23/clinton-foundation-took-massive-payoffs-promised-hammond-ranch-and-other-publicly-owned-lands-to-russians-along-with-one-fifth-of-our-uranium-ore-2/
