My Thoughts On The Oregon Militia Situation


By now, most of you know about what is currently taking place out in Oregon. I’m not going to attempt to try and spell it all out, as that’s going to be way too complicated, but if you’re still unsure, see this post from The Conservative Treehouse, which summed up everything pretty well.

Now, first off, I’d like to address a few things that I’ve seen circulating on some more leftist sites, such as US Uncut, which posted this idiotic article. This is probably my favorite passage from their rant:

The occupation has, at the time of this writing, gone largely unnoticed by the major media networks. While the burning of a CVS in predominantly-black Baltimore during the Freddie Gray protests received wall-to-wall coverage on almost all of the networks, and while nearly every media outlet in the country covered the burning of the QuikTrip store in Ferguson that was burned following the non-indictment of Darren Wilson for killing Mike Brown, the lack of coverage of an armed, white, right-wing mob forcefully taking over federal property seems like an afterthought to most of the corporate-owned TV networks.

I think they missed something here? Maybe it’s irony. The thing that sets apart the Oregon standoff from Ferguson and Baltimore is the number of burning building (which is 0), the number of people who have been raped, shot, or attacked (which is 0), and the number of people who lost their entire livelyhood (which is 0). The Oregon standoff is something they shouldn’t be trying to compare Ferguson and Baltimore to, as the latter two obviously are FAR worse.

Think about it for a second: in the Oregon standoff, you have a big group of militiamen held up in a federal (a national park) building in a National Park, and it’s in a suburban area. There haven’t been any fires, or destruction of property to warrant a major response. Contrast to, just say, Ferguson. There were riots in the streets, buildings being burned down, millions of dollars of property damage, lot’s of looting, and lot’s of people getting hurt. You tell me which one would require a major response.

Another thing; let’s talk about the reaction of the left as a whole. For the most part, there are a few prominent hashtags I’ve seen used, such as #OregonUnderAttack and #YallQaeda (I didn’t make that up. See the image below). I think I missed the part where there was lots of shooting, bombings, and complete utter chaos. Maybe they did too, or they’re just being reactionaries because it’s the right-wing doing something they don’t like.


Like the right did with both Ferguson and Baltimore, the left has resorted to calling the Oregon standoff “terrorism”, which can be seen in their hashtags, and their language. Though, maybe it’s just me, but I believe the word “terrorism” still has some value to it, and neither Ferguson, Baltimore, nor Oregon should be labeled as terrorism.

Reason Magazine’s Robby Soave put out a nice piece that I really agreed with, and I recommend you read it. But this here is probably my favorite passage from the article:

Domestic terrorists? Really? And here I was thinking liberals were just as skeptical as libertarians about the prudence of labelling everything and everyone a terrorist. Don’t they remember that every time someone brands someone else a terrorist, the Patriot Act gets a dozen pages longer? Government power relies upon such unfounded suspicions.

Keep in mind that the ranchers haven’t taken hostages, damaged property, or hurt anyone. The previous standoff between federal authorities and the Bundy family was resolved peacefully. It’s possible the situation at the wildlife headquarters escalates into something horrifically violent, but it seems wildly premature and speculative to assert that it will.

The left has moved into a reactionary, fear-mongering state, and to me, it’s not surprise. Let them have their emotionally-driven hissyfit, and let the stark irony of their treatment of this situation and the situations of both Ferguson and Baltimore grow. Eventually, they’ve gotta see it.

But away from all of that, back to my thoughts. Personally, I have no issue with people doing this. Call me a terrorist sympathizer all you want, but in my eyes, it just makes you look like a British Loyalist from back in the Revolutionary War days. All you care about is protecting the government in the midsts of it’s abuses of power, and showcasing just how much it can hurt your enemies.

People have the right to assemble, and that’s not just for white people, you social justice freaks. That applies to everyone, as the Constitution does. If you don’t believe that’s how that works, you might want to evaluate your ideology, and the people you support, because someone is colorblind then.

People have the right to bear arms, and it’s in the Constitution for situations where the people need them against their government, not just hunting. Do I support what they’re doing out in Oregon? Meh, I’m not sure. I’m not sure how taking over a National Park building will do them good. In fact, for a national park in the Pacific Northwest, I’d actually be concerned for them, with all the missing people and strange stuff that take place out there.

I’m not really sure I understand the whole logic behind choosing a National Park building, but I can’t see inside their heads. I don’t have telepathy. What I do know is that this is probably going to go on for a while, and it’ll escalate when the government begins with a response, beyond sitting around and watching the militia members.

Does the Hammond family deserve justice? Yes, and the 9th Circuit court started this whole mess by overrulling the lower courts sentence and imposing the mandatory minimum (there we go with mandatory minimums again) of 5 years on both the father and son for two counts of arson (they were initially charged with a lot more, but were only convicted on arson because the judge threw the rest out, while they pleaded guilty to the arson charges). The son would have only had an 11 month sentence, and the dad would have only had a 3 year sentence. Both are still preferrable to the liberal 9th Circuit’s ruling of 5 each.

So, to close this up, where do we go from here on this? Start off by picking a President who won’t pack the 9th Circuit with liberal judges, but we’re not going to get that most likely. If anything, pay attention to alternative news sources to see what’s happening, because as you saw with the Bundy Ranch, they’re not going to spread truths. It’s as simple as that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s