I think Mr. Cordrea's concerns are a bit overblown. So far, no threats against anyone have been made, and no laws have been broken in this occupation.
[Ammoland.com] USA – “Armed protesters, including three sons of a Nevada rancher who battled with the government in 2014, vowed to occupy a federal building in Oregon for ‘as long as it takes,’ as state and federal officials on Sunday sought to defuse the situation,” Fox News, among others, is reporting. It’s a dangerous situation some of us have been following since yesterday’s takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters following a protest in support of rancher Dwight Hammond and his son Steven.
The Hammonds were convicted of arson after a fire they said they started on their property to burn off wildfire-threatening invasive species inadvertently spread onto federal land, consuming 139 acres. The government charged they were covering up evidence of poaching, and the jury bought the prosecution’s arguments. A new controversy arose after it was ruled the trial court sentence was not harsh enough, and Chief Judge Ann Aiken of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon tacked on an additional five years.
“The Hammond family does not want an armed standoff, and nobody has a right to force one on them,” Oath Keepers told its members. “Since Dwight and Steven Hammond, through their attorney, have made it clear they intend to turn themselves in and serve out the additional time, Oath Keepers cannot, and will not, try to interfere with that decision (peaceable assembly and protest is, of course, fine, but going beyond that against their wishes is not).”
“The 3% of Idaho, 3% of Oregon, The Oregon Constitutional Guard, and PPN organizations in no way condone nor support these actions,” the 3% of Oregon declared in a Facebook press release. “They do not mirror our vision, mission statement, or views in regards to upholding the Constitution, The Rule of Law, or Due Process.”
Also complicating matters for the protesters, some of the locals are scared. And the ranchers at the heart of the dispute, through their lawyer, declared they have nothing to do with the takeover.
Ammond Bundy disagrees with Oath Keepers, says the Hammonds distancing themselves has been coerced after government threats, and has put out a call for people to come to Oregon and support his actions. So now what we have is a serious split between those who do not agree with Bundy’s methods, and an angry backlash against anyone speaking out against his actions, with plenty of name-calling going in both directions.
That schism has to please those who benefit from an opportunity to “divide and conquer,” and that’s very apparent on social media. But here’s the thing — even if you are someone who opposes the action, you’re still affected by it. Like it or not, we’re all in it up to our necks.
That’s because the monopoly of violence “progressives” will use the Oregon occupation to tar everyone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms as an “insurrectionist,” an “extremist” and a “domestic terrorist.” That will be extended to mainstream groups like NRA, always a convenient media punching bag. And the smear job won’t be limited to gun rights defenders. Expect it to cover anyone who espouses “conservative” values. And expect attacks on the Republicans, especially on the presidential candidates.
Don’t be surprised to see some in the GOP reconsider how committed they’re willing to be opposing Obama’s anticipated executive orders. And don’t’ be surprised to see the administration looking to emergency powers to deal not just with the Oregon situation, but to do whatever they think they can get away. Don‘t be surprised to see Democrats, gun-grabber groups and the press cheering it on. More at the link
Thankfully, it looks like this dog and pony show will peter out in absurd irrelevance on it's own. Of course, given how vindictive some of our appointed masters are, you can expect a quiet round of arrests & "Process as Punishment" legal action for the participants in the near future.
Something is wrong about this. Supposedly laws were broken 6-7 years ago. Tacked on more jail time. Still I don't like this whole story. Even what they were charged with. Not poaching. Seems a government manufactured effort and if so they can't even get that right.
[DAWN] WHILE Pakistain-India ties are necessarily about a great deal more than terrorism, the latter is perhaps the one threat that can derail the relationship yet again.
It is too early to know the facts about what transpired at an Indian air force base in Pathankot but already some challenges -- and opportunities for broadening and deepening anti-terrorism efforts -- can be identified.
Firstly, the Pak government has done the right thing in quickly and unequivocally condemning the terror attack and offering its cooperation to India.
Having suffered grievously from bully boy violence and having resolved to fight militancy in all its forms, Pakistain should rightly offer its support to any state confronting terror threats. It is a welcome change that Pakistain now officially and directly condemns terrorist attacks regionally and internationally and offers its assistance where necessary.
The years of ambivalence appear to have been left behind.
Yet, the challenges are formidable. The hostile reaction by much of the Indian media to the alleged involvement of Paks in the attack even before the barest facts could be established underlines just how difficult peacemaking will be.
Courageously, however, the Indian government has appeared to resist media and hawkish pressure and declined to go into attack mode against Pakistain. It is all too easy to reap political capital in the midst of a major terrorist attack by targeting perceived external enemies.
The preferable approach -- one that hopefully the Indian government will continue to adopt in the days ahead -- would be to quickly establish the facts. If no involvement of Pak nationals is found, the information should be shared with the Indian public.
If Pak nationals are found to be involved in the attack, the information should be shared with Pak authorities as quickly as possible -- and reciprocal steps should be taken here. To thwart the political motives of terrorists, a sensible, cooperative approach by both governments should be key.
Inside Pakistain, there needs to be some reflection. Has Pakistain's inability to deal adequately with India's concerns about the 2008 Mumbai attacks caused cynicism about Pak intentions and led to Indians being automatically suspicious of Pakistain whenever a terrorist attack occurs in their country?
If so, does that not harm Pakistain's own interests? There is still too much defensiveness about the terrorism threat on the Pak side -- perhaps less so in the political government, but certainly in the military-led security establishment.
There is no conceivable gain that Pakistain can make through terrorism when it comes to key disputes and issues with India. Not only is that abundantly clear outside the state apparatus, a generation of bigwigs, both military and civilian, have publicly and privately acknowledged and accepted that.
If that is indeed the case, then Pakistain ought to lead confidently on the regional terrorist threat. No one -- at least no one credible -- can accuse the Pak state of not wanting to or failing to fight the banned TTP today. The day must come when the same can be said for all terror threats, internally, regionally and internationally.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/04/2016 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
apparently this writer is unaware of the phone calls intercepted from their Pakistain handlers
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/04/2016 15:50 Comments ||
OTOH see DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [Sputnik News]VIDEO: "INDIA, BANGLADESH, AND PAKISTAN WILL ALL BE UNITED UNDER NAME, ONE FLAG THAT IS PAKISTAN" -ZAID HAMID.
Apparently We're-Supposed-to-be-the-World's-First-Islamic-Nuclear-Superpower-NOT-Iran PAKISTAN = ISLAMABAD GOVT. has decided the time is right for Nuke-Armed Pakistan to begin aggressively unilaterally asserting its rights and expanding its Milpol or Geopol influence both Regionally + Around the World ASAP AMAP ALAP AFAP.
Seemingly in the SOUTHWARD STRATEGIC DIRECTION VEE INDIA + INDIA SUBCONTINENT, + WESTWARD VEE ARAB MIDDLE EAST, as Pakistan is hemmed in by THREE OWG CO-SUPERPOWERS INCLUD SSSHHH...CCCCCC PAK "BFF/Frenemy" + STRATEGIC PARTNER IRAN, + CHINA + RUSSIA IN West Asia???
Besides also NAVALLY e.g. recent Pak Navy NAVEXS wid India + Japan in SCS + Straits of Malaccas.
INDIA must be feeling nervousy twitchy about what the NEAR-TERM FUTURE beholds - CHINA, ISIS/ISIL IN AFPAK + CENTRAL ASIA, + NEWLY MILPOL/GEOPOL AGGRESSIVE NUCLEAR PAKISTAN.
[DAWN] THE year began with heady rhetoric from Gen Raheel Sharif ..Pak chief of army staff, meaning he pulls the strings on the Nawaz Sharif puppet to make it dance and sing and not do much at all.... . Speaking in Quetta on New Year's Day he stated that this would be the year that terrorism would be eradicated from Pakistain. At roughly the same time, Sindh's counterterrorism department was arresting in Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... a recruiter for the murderous MoslemIslamic State
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/04/2016 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Islamic State
A great new look at Pakistan would do some good, as Saudis are getting put under the heat.
[DAWN] THE year witnessed a significant de-escalation in terrorist and sectarian attacks in south Punjab 1.) Little Orphan Annie's bodyguard
2.) A province of Pakistain ruled by one of the Sharif brothers
3.) A province of India. It is majority (60 percent) Sikh and Hindoo (37 percent), which means it has relatively few Moslem riots.... as krazed killer violence mostly shifted elsewhere, mainly to the northern cities, in the province.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
01/04/2016 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Pakistan
Opinion piece from Daniel Pipes.
The Islamist movement may appear stronger than ever, but a close look suggests two weaknesses that might doom it, and perhaps quickly.
Its strengths are obvious. The Taliban, Al-Shabaab, Boku Haram, and ISIS take Islamism â the ideology calling for Islamic law to be applied in its entirety and severity â to unbearable extremes, rampaging and brutalizing their way to power. Pakistan could fall into their hands. The ayatollahs of Iran enjoy a second wind thanks to the Vienna deal. Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world. Recep Tayyip ErdoÄan is becoming Turkey's dictator. Islamist operatives swarm the Mediterranean toward Europe.
But weaknesses within, especially squabbling and disapproval, could undo the Islamist movement.
Infighting became vicious in 2013, when Islamists abruptly stopped their prior pattern of cooperation among themselves and instead began internecine fighting. Yes, the Islamist movement as a whole shares similar goals, but it also contains different intellectuals, groups, and parties with variant ethnic affiliations, tactics, and ideologies.
Its internal divisions have spread fast and far. These include Sunnis vs. Shiites, notably in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; monarchists vs. republicans, notably in Saudi Arabia; non-violent vs. violent types, notably in Egypt; modernizers vs medieval revivalists, notably in Tunisia; and plain old personal differences, notably in Turkey. These divisions obstruct the movement by turning its guns inward.
The dynamic here is ancient: As Islamists approach power, they fight amongst themselves for dominance. Differences that hardly mattered when in the wilderness take on great importance as the stakes get higher. In Turkey, for example, the politician ErdoÄan and the religious leader Fethullah GĂźlen cooperated until they dispatched their common enemy, the military, from politics, when they turned against each other.
Unpopularity, the second problem, may be the biggest peril for the movement. As populations experience Islamist rule first hand, they reject it. It's one thing to believe in the abstract about the benefits of Islamic law and quite another to suffer its deprivations, ranging from the Islamic State's totalitarian horrors to the comparatively benign emerging dictatorship in Turkey.
Signs of this discontent include the large majorities of Iranians who reject the Islamic Republic, the wave of exiles out of Somalia, and the massive Egyptian demonstrations of 2013 protesting a single year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power. As with fascist and communist rule, Islamist sovereignty often leads to people voting with their feet.
Should these two tendencies hold, the Islamist movement is heading for trouble. Some analysts already see the Islamist era having ended and the emergence of something new from its wreckage. For example, the Sudanese scholar Haidar Ibrahim Ali argues that a "post-Islamization" era has begun, when Islamism's "vitality and attractiveness have been exhausted even among the most ardent of its supporters and enthusiasts."
The enemies of Islamism have much work ahead. Muslims must both fight this movement and develop a compelling alternative to its goal of implementing Islamic law, explaining constructively what it means to be a Muslim in 2016. Non-Muslims can serve as their helpful auxiliaries, providing everything from applause to funds to guns.
Islamism's mounting problems offer grounds for confidence but not for smugness, as another reversal in course could take place at any time. But if current trends hold, the Islamist movement will have been limited, much as fascism and communism before it, damaging Western civilization, not destroying it.
Whatever the trend, defeating Islamism remains the challenge.
A month before the Yale Halloween meltdown, I had a bizarre and illuminating experience at an elite private high school on the West Coast. I'll call it Centerville High. I gave a version of a talk that you can see here, on Coddle U. vs. Strengthen U. (In an amazing coincidence, I first gave that talk at Yale a few weeks earlier).
The entire student body -- around 450 students, from grades 9-12 -- was in the auditorium. There was plenty of laughter at all the right spots, and a lot of applause at the end, so I thought the talk was well received.
But then the discussion began, and it was the most unremittingly hostile questioning I've ever had. I don't mind when people ask hard or critical questions, but I was surprised that I had misread the audience so thoroughly. My talk had little to do with gender, but the second question was "So you think rape is OK?"
...After the first dozen questions I noticed that not a single questioner was male. I began to search the sea of hands asking to be called on and I did find one boy, who asked a question that indicated that he too was critical of my talk. But other than him, the 200 or so boys in the audience sat silently. In modern education theory boys are just, willfully, misbehaving girls---they learn to shut up (and not to get too good grades in tests---I'm speaking from experience with my son), or they learn the taste of Rytalin.
For the last couple of years, after I retired, I took a job as a substitute teacher in local (upper middle class) middle schools. It was an eye-opening experience.
One of my earliest classes was for Math. There was a small amount of noise/horse play at one of the groups, they were all placed in groups of 6. I went over and told the boys who were the loudest that they had to settle down and work quietly.........then I told the girls that I had seen them be the instigators of the whole situation and that THEY were just as responsible. You would have thought I'd just sprouted horns. Over time the same sort of thing happened, it was always a surprise to the kids when I held the girls responsible for their behavior as well as the boys.
Most of the kids seemed to appreciate this. I spoke to the Asst. Principal who was the ultimate disciplinarian about this and he admitted that the double standard was there and hard to break since he was never in the room to see who was the arsonist.
The drive to treat boys as misbehaving girls is well embedded in the teaching profession starting in Kindergarten. My wife, a Kindergarten teacher, can cite chapter and verse about this. Not ALL teachers and administrators are bad but the majority are and that means that all boys will get nailed by this at least a few times.
Have the head gurl sit in the middle of the room without her bag on a simple chair. Remind everyone no staring. Being the centre of attention is only fun for so so long. WARNING. Some gurls are like Golden Retrievers, they thrive on sitting in the middle.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.