The Rise of Militias: Patriot candidates now getting elected in Oregon
The premise, so it seems, is that the Colonials in their longstanding rebellion against the Crown have are now getting uppity and carrying all manner of ungentlemanly implements of insurrection and violence. Moreover, in a certain area of Oregon, the local gentry is having a spot of trouble collecting taxes to fund pet social welfare programs. One of the great unwashed that has been seemingly given rank in their quaint little version of the House of Commons, is actually suggesting that the philistines can govern themselves! Unthinkable. If that was not enough beyond the pale, this oaf is a member of an organization that is incredulously called the Oathkeepers, but they certainly have no oath to their betters. And that, gentle Sirs and Ladies, is just not cricket.
Of course through the meandering corridors of what in an English mind must be a house of horrors, the author conjures up Trump, the TEA Party, the Ferguson riots, the Koch brothers, the Sugar Pine Mine occupation, the Malheur occupation, Bundy Ranch, and the aforementioned Oathkeepers. Whew, by the black heart of Margaret Sanger that was quite the yarn. To add credibility, they did manage to get quotes from a noted SPLC hack and a communi-, er, sociali-, um, "progressive" Rural Organizer. Whatever the hell that means. Sounds like suspiciously like something the Khmer Rouge had a while back, but I am fairly certain the fine people of Oregon would know how to handle that brand of Statist.
Having to man-splain how free men and women behave in the face of growing tyranny does seem to be an exercise in futility. How can you explain wanting to leave and be left alone to people so busy staring at their navels in self-loathing disgust and self-righteous anger? You cannot. But you can, as Mr. Carl Wilson has done, make your little slice of the pie easier for others to move around in. I applaud his efforts to keep the leviathan at bay and encourage our friends in the Oregon's Congressional District 3 to assist him in reclaiming his post. The problem that a lot of libertarian leaning folks have had is in trying to elect candidates for big seats. Everyone wants to be a proper general but no one sees that wars are won in the dirt and weeds. Elect your local dog catcher and work your way up. You states House and Senate is a great place to start turning back the tide. Of course, those behind the lines in occupied territory are exempted. Gotta know your limitations.
Not that I think that we can vote our way out of this mess, but if you will not fight the small fights now you will not be able to fight the big fights later.
2 comments:
I'm not ultra-fond of attempting to "Elect your local dog catcher and work your way up." I do believe that focusing on local government is the best available option at the present time, but that's because the national government is simply a lost cause at this point.
For me, the problem with the idea of moving from smaller local offices to larger offices is that it requires a career in politics to get to the more prominent offices, and career politicians in high-office is the main driver of disrespect for the proper Constitutional role of government at any level.
I think it's fine to look for someone that has experience (and a record) as a state governor or House representative when picking a Presidential candidate. But I firmly believe that those significant offices should be filled by people who have at least a decade of experience in the private sector. At all hazards, we should never adopt a theory of politics which ensures that those who hold the highest offices have no practical experience of what it is like to be subject to the laws as a private citizen rather than a member of the government.
Of course, I'm also a proponent of a well-armed and experience militia being the main bulwark of law-enforcement and national defense, and I see great potential for electing to political office men who have demonstrated the ability to lead (and to faithfully follow) in that context. I don't believe that there should be much place in our public life for the man who has no civic engagement beyond pursuit of his own narrow interests. But the corollary for me is that civic engagement shouldn't require public office or main employment at the public expense. People who don't ever find time to volunteer to uphold the laws and morals of society should be rare and regarded as cranks. Of course it is necessary to a Constitutionally limited government that most provision for the needy should be through private alms organizations, and I think service in such organizations should be more of a commonplace...but it does not by nature have the same effect of preparing men to consider the role and impact of government on the lives of individual people. Indeed, between the philanthropist who devotes nearly all his energy to running a charity and the businessman who only spends time on his company and his family, I much prefer to see the latter elected to make and administer laws.
The comments on that article show me just how early ignorant and uncaring the majority of our population is. Truly it appears better than half our population would prefer to see the government slaughter any "right wing hill billies" who protest blm policies than to consider whether there could be any merit to complaints. If you have a gun and say anything about the constitution of founding fathers you are a bad guy period. This makes that series of books Enemies Foreign and Domestic seem very realistic. This next civil war is going to be unavoidable and brutal, it seems. Whites v reds round 2.
Post a Comment