Winning Ain’t Winning If We Lost Half a Century Ago

by William Skink

In this week’s column, Ochenski joins the chorus celebrating the conclusion of the stupid standoff in Oregon with a piece titled They fought the law and the law won. From the link:

For what it’s worth, the Bundy-led takeover of the federal Malheur Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon is about over. Why these misled individuals ever thought they could simply pull out military-style weapons, intimidate local citizens, commandeer a federal facility and threaten federal and state law enforcement officers with deadly force is beyond imagination. That the incident ended with only one “suicide by cop” is actually miraculous.

I don’t think it’s all that mystifying why a few entitled, white land owners think they can flout the law and win. Ignoring law and order has become a virulent American tradition.

Bush officials lied America into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Have they faced consequences for their actions? No, they haven’t. Wall Street engaged in such massive fraud that they blew up the global economy and used taxpayers to bail themselves out. Have they faced consequences for their actions? No, they haven’t. They were rewarded.

Other recent examples: local government officials in Flint knowingly poisoned people and have yet to be indicted. Police officers are rarely held accountable for using lethal force, even when obvious video evidence exists of misconduct. And here in Missoula, our water infrastructure was sold out from under us in blatant defiance of a court determination because the Carlyle Group doesn’t think it has to adhere to Montana’s Public Service Commission. When all the dust settles, who really thinks the Carlyle Group will have more than a scratch after fighting the law in our lowly jurisdictions?

Even the supreme law of the land–the constitution–is regularly violated on a daily basis by America’s surveillance state. Amidst all this lawlessness is it any wonder why entitled land owners would balk at paying grazing fees or occupying a bird shack with their military-grade weaponry?

Many are blaming the Federal government for not getting into a shoot out with the Bundy’s and their supporters when they had the chance to assert Federal authority over them back in Nevada.

I guess my perspective is a bit skewed with all the reading I’ve been doing lately. Over the weekend I started Russ Baker’s Family of Secrets about the Bush clan’s rise to power and it’s increasingly apparent that “Poppy” was a part of the coup that culminated with the assassination of JFK.

For some people, the law is a pesky obstruction to consolidating power and is circumvented whenever possible. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that this mentality has trickled down to well-armed yokels in the west. Their mistake was in assuming they have the clout to be as lawless as a Bush or a Dulles.

I do agree with those who claim a stronger Federal response in Nevada could have kept the occupation in Oregon from happening in the first place. But if we’re playing with speculative what-ifs, one might want to speculate whether marching the heads of Wall Street to the guillotine or turning Dulles and Bush over to a firing squad for treason could have kept this country from turning the opportunity after WWII into a guarantee for WWIII.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Winning Ain’t Winning If We Lost Half a Century Ago

  1. steve kelly says:

    There are no white hats in this battle. It is hard to imagine anyone breaking federal laws more often, and with less accountability, than the federal government itself. While I do not support or condone the actions of armed protesters or the militarized police in this matter, it is a much more complex, multi-faceted story than what’s been reported by MSM. Here’s a unique take by Paul Craig Roberts.

  2. It is important to understand, in my view, that while there are no free markets anywhere and never have been, those who amass power in the contrived marketplace also end up controlling the government. So the distinction between government and private is almost meaningless, but not quite. The only objective in removing land from public ownership would be to place it completely outside the rule of law so that there is no avenue for people like Steve Kelly above to petition the courts for redress of grievances.

  3. JC says:

    Funny that you began Family of Secrets this weekend. I just started Devil’s Chessboard after finishing Family a few weeks ago. Interesting to learn about how Operation Sunshine, 70 years later, still has a huge impact on U.S./Russia/German relations. The seeds of the Cold War were heavily watered with that piece of work by Dulles.

    I’m currently downloading a 12 part Soviet TV series from the early 70s (part of Andropov’s push to change the world view of the USSR propaganda) to eventually watch — Seventeen Moments of Spring. It’s about a Soviet spy who was trying to disrupt the negotiations between Dulles and the Germans for a peace settlement that precluded both Roosevelt and Stalin from getting an unconditional surrender. Should be interesting…

  4. Big Swede says:

    Randy Weaver’s wife and son fought the law and the law won.

    So did the families of the Branch Davidians.

    • Big Swede says:

      In reference to your link.

      “Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi’s theories of “passive resistance” would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass.” — Mike Vanderboegh.

  5. Big Swede says:

    To all those Bernie supporters.

    Heads Hillary wins, tails you lose.

Leave a Reply