The Art of Misdirection Portrayed in Oregon Mine Militia Article by Reuters

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Magicians and politicians have a lot in common.  Deception is their primary tool.

Our minds fill in the blanks with what we want to see; so much so, that it can change political systems, and shape human history.

Changing what the brain is focused on can lead us to accept what we are experiencing as satisfactory, even if what we see changes, or heads in a direction, we would under normal conditions have not accepted.

Change works in collusion with political blindness.  Subtle changes are often inserted, but not seen, because we are too busy focusing on other issues, or are distracted by the manipulation of language.  Statists know that they can make change happen during a crisis, or through misdirection, because when these distractions are going on, we can be blind to what is really going on.

The sad truth is, we only see pieces of the bigger picture, but we don't understand what's really going on because the purveyors of tyranny have shielded the truth of their activities with complexity and good intentions.  People have been convinced it takes too much work to identify reality, anyways.  Besides, unless we recognize an obvious reason to reject a lie, we will believe it.  We are naturally wired to accept what we are told by ruling elite con-men that are confident, and charismatic; and we trust them when they tell us it is all for the common good.

If we make assumptions about what we see, we can be fooled to believe anything.  A little deception goes a long way in shaping the political atmosphere, and convincing our brains that what we see is not necessarily what the truth is.

Tyrants understand how to use misdirection.  Their minions join in with ease.  They use issues that anyone would be concerned about, while using carefully constructed language, accusatory titles, vernacular that targets certain groups or belief systems without actually saying that it is they that are the culprits, and then the manipulators stress how those that don't comply with federal recommendations can cause whatever the concern is to worsen.  Thousands or millions can be at risk, if you don't do what the central government tells you, or you dare to ally with the "anti-government" types that dare to stand against central control.

Hidden inside all of the rhetoric and misdirection is a truth hiding in plain sight, often revealing that what you are being told on the surface has nothing to do with reality.  People are being herded by the media, and political reports.  Enemy lines are being drawn.  People are being separated into rival groups and set against each other, and then are calling out to the federal government to resolve the problem, not realizing that it was that same government they are pleading for help from that caused the tension and misinformation that led to the problem in the first place.

Revealing the truth has become a radical act.  The truth is not considered among the sheep that believe what they are being told, and the political class will not allow the truth to surface because it does not support the big government narrative.  What is best for America, or best for individuals, is not even a consideration.  The leftist, progressive agenda is the primary focus of the statists.  Compliance to the social engineering leading us to a collective system is all that matters to these people.  Your individual desires or choices are not welcome, unless those desires and choices agree with the desires and choices political correctness, or the central government, tells you that you are allowed to have.

The opposition to the social engineers have been labeled as the problem, regardless of if they truly are.  Noncompliance by this "radical" opposition full of "extremists" is being blamed for the problems the federal government itself has created.

The premise the left uses is a mystery to most people because the public does not understand the proper role of government.  In reality, none of these local issues are any of the federal government's business.  The Founding Fathers never intended for the federal government to be involved in internal issues.  These are the responsibilities of the sovereign States.  The federal government was created to protect, preserve and promote the union through authorities regarding common defense, trade with other nations, border security, disputes between the States, and the postal service (to name a few).  The federal government is not supposed to own, or regulate, any land unless it is first purchased with the consent of the State legislature, and for the purpose of needful buildings (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the United States Constitution).  The federal government is not supposed to be involved in local matters, including emergency services, policing, drug laws, health care, marriage, education, gun laws, abortion, or local land use.  Authorities regarding any of those issues are not expressly enumerated anywhere in the Constitution, including any of the 27 Amendments, and therefore, as per Amendment 10, none of those issues are any of the federal government's business.  What that means is that the idea of federalizing the police or emergency services, all federal drug laws, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the involvement of the federal courts or any other part of the federal government in dictating to States what they can or can't do regarding the definition of marriage, federal funding or interference in the education system, all federal gun laws, federal involvement in the abortion issue in any way, and federal involvement in instituting "sustainable development" policies are all unconstitutional. . . and therefore "illegal."

An article titled "Groups warn Oregon mine militia dispute threatens democracy" gives us a great example of how, in the case of the article, Reuters uses misdirection, the manipulation of language, and complete ignorance of the Constitution, or complete compliance with the federal government's usurpation of the Constitution, to put across a message that protects the narrative, and demonizes any who dare stand against what the supporters of statism demand must be the path to their socially engineered and politically designed utopia.

First of all, let's examine the use of the word "democracy" in the title.  The United States is not a democracy, and it must not be a democracy.  True and pure democracies are societies that ultimately commit suicide, collapsing under the weight of maladministration, and a society that votes into power oligarchs who promise gifts from the treasury.  As a republic, the United States contains numerous checks and balances against being a democracy, including a representative Congress (with already one check and balance against democracy removed by the 17th Amendment), the right of due process, and the Electoral College.

Also in the title is the words "Oregon mine militia."  The word militia has been altered over the last two hundred years, carrying with it a connotation of "anti-government militants," and "heavily armed dissidents" that have "survivalist" tendencies.  The term "survivalist" has also been wrongly misrepresented in our society, and has become a term also associated with being rebellious against the all-powerful government.  A militia during the time of the founding of this country was a gathering of citizens to defend their States against enemies, both foreign, and domestic.  According to the 2nd Amendment, militias are necessary for the security of freedom of the States.

In between "Oregon mine militia" and "democracy" are the words "dispute threatens."  The beginning of the title reads "Groups warn."

So, let's break down the message the title of the article if feeding us before you even read the first sentence of the article.

The title is telling us that "Groups," which is suggested to be a group of experts that are "on the side of good," by the way things are worded, are "warning" that danger is imminent.  The cause of the danger?  Rebellious, anti-government, probably bible-thumping, gun-toting violent people (militia) that are for some reason guarding some kind of Oregon mine.  The militia is causing (the militia being "the cause" is the connotation, anyway) a dispute against the groups (experts, probably good natured, peace loving government types who only want what's best for the collective society) regarding some kind of mine (and we've seen anti-mining propaganda, like regarding the coal industry, in place since Obama's been in office).  The bad militia people are not just in a dispute with these wonderful groups that only want what's best for the common good, but they are "threatening democracy."

By indicating the militia group, whoever they are, is "threatening democracy," that means, according to the misdirection being used here by Reuters, that they want to bring down the whole country (threatening democracy contains that connotation, doesn't it?).  The militia, as far as Reuters is suggesting, wants some kind of totalitarian system using their guns to force everyone into a system that is not a democracy.

So, now that the reader is alerted on how horrible these democracy-threatening militia people are, let's find out who these dangerous militia types are.

From the opening of the article: "PORTLAND, Ore. (Reuters) - A coalition of public policy advocates warned on Tuesday that a group of armed conservative activists who have been guarding a mine in southern Oregon for over a month are a sign of an emerging violent anti-government movement."

"A coalition," which is another way of saying "consensus."  Remember, through global warming, we have been taught by the statists that consensus is good, and anyone that dares stand against the "consensus," or "coalition," is bad (deniers).  So a righteous coalition of "public policy advocates" - which would be people that advocate for the righteousness of government policy that the uninformed have been taught since childhood is for the common good - "warned". . . again, we are being told danger is on the horizon. . . "that a group of armed conservative activists" ---

Bingo.  Per the wording of Reuters' article, we have uncovered who the dangerous, evil, democracy threatening militia people are.  Conservatives.  But not just any conservatives, but "armed" conservatives.  And not just "armed conservatives," but armed conservative "activists."

Let's go back to the narrative, for a moment.

The liberal left statist progressive narrative, thanks to rioting, a manipulation of language and history, and a propaganda campaign dutifully carried out by the news media, the education system, and the entertainment industry, is that conservatives are republicans, and republicans are conservatives, and any leftist minority will tell you that "republican" is synonymous with "racist," "bigot," and that every republican out there hates Obama because he's black, loves corporations and wants to steal from the poor to make sure fat cat corporate types line their pockets with more money, and want to do anything they can to make sure the poor go hungry and live in misery.  None of that is true, of course, but that's not the point.  This is all about the leftist narrative, and how they are feeding it to grow bigger and bigger until they can finally silence and eliminate all opposition.

The end of the sentence is what is most interesting, for it sets up the whole "silence the opposition" argument.  What do the conservative armed militia people that threaten democracy truly want? Their actions are a "sign of an emerging violent anti-government movement."

Statists work endlessly to convince the public that patriotism is love of government.  Anyone who is not in full agreement with that, and believes in limiting the powers of the government, are then automatically labeled as "anti-government."  I remember one time Harry Reid went so far as to call the Tea Party drive for limited government the actions of "anarchists."  But, these crazy, conservative militia people are not just "anti-government," according to Reuters, but they wish to go against the government in a "violent" manner (hence, why the leftists claim they believe in gun control).

The next sentence in the article identifies the righteous "groups" mentioned in the title of the article: "The groups behind the newly formed "Ballots Not Bullets" coalition said they will seek to promote democracy over what they call militia-style extremism and will try to counter these kinds of movements nationwide."

"Ballots Not Bullets" is the identity of the "groups," and once again we are told they seek "democracy" (also known as "mob-rule," or the "tyranny of the majority" as Jefferson put it).  The leftists want oligarchy, but they hide their true goals, so they push for democracy, which is historically a transitional kind of system on the way to tyranny.  Without the checks and balances in place that exist in a republic, all tyranny has to do is convince enough of the voters to vote in their tyranny.  And if you oppose that?  Well, in that sentence we just addressed, that means you are a "militia-style extremism," and those "conservative militias" must be "countered. . . nationwide."

Is this a call to round up, arrest, and detain everyone the government deems to be "anti-government"?

Sheds a great deal of light upon the Jade Helm 15 operation, doesn't it?

More leftist keywords appear in the next sentence of the article:  "Created by seven organizations including the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Catholics in Alliance for Common Good, Ballots Not Bullets is a response to an ongoing legal battle between the owners of a mining claim outside the small Oregon town of Medford and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management."

"Stop Gun Violence" is a phrase used in conjunction with the Gun Control Movement which seeks to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens by labeling them as dangerous potential domestic terrorists, or "anti-government" activists.  "Common Good" is a catch phrase used in schemes of collectivism, or communal systems better known as socialism, or communism.  As for the battle regarding the mine in question, it is between the Oregon town of Medford, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Once again, let's return to the Constitution.  Local issues are none of the federal government's business, and land can only be obtained by the federal government through the purchase of the land, through the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings.  I don't know if the mine was purchased by the federal government, and done so by the consent of the Oregon State Legislature, but I doubt it was.  However, if it is a mine, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is claiming it has control over the mine, the reality is that I don't believe a mine qualifies as "needful buildings," so I will say the federal government's role in this fight is unconstitutional.

The next sentence is more specific in identifying the dangerous conservative militia: "Sugar Pine Mine co-owner Rick Barclay summoned guards from the conservative Oath Keepers activist network following a stop-work order he received in March after BLM officials said equipment found on site did not meet requirements."

"Oath Keepers."  I am very familiar with Oath Keepers.  They are not a militia, per se, and I don't even know if you could call them "conservative."  Oath Keepers attracts more than conservatives.  The group is populated by libertarians, too.  And in reality, Oath Keepers is not about ideology.  They are not about conservatism, or libertarianism, or liberalism.  The Oath Keepers is about the Constitution, and more specifically people who have taken the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and then taking action to do so.  In other words, the dangerous militia that is a threat to democracy, according to Reuters, is a group that is all about defending the Constitution.  So, in a way, the headline was accurate, for the Constitution was designed to threaten democracy, because democracy is dangerous.  We are a republic.

The next sentence of the article gave some basic information: "The armed guards were still guarding the mine as of Tuesday, Oath Keepers spokeswoman Mary Emerick said, although she would not say how many."

Then: "The founders of Ballots Not Bullets, who say they may lobby Oregon lawmakers on the issue, describe the dispute as the latest manifestation of last year's standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government, in which the BLM sought to seize Bundy's cattle after he refused to pay grazing fees."

The founders of Ballots Not Bullets is accurate.  This is indeed a continuation of the fight that we saw at Bundy Ranch in Nevada.  The BLM is acting unconstitutionally, and Americans are standing against the oppressive federal government.  The unconstitutionality of the federal government is being challenged, their tyranny is being questioned, and Reuters calls it a threat to democracy.

In a reference to the Bundy Ranch standoff: "The federal agents backed down after an armed standoff."

Yeah, we were kind of surprised.  Some folks expected a Ruby Ridge kind of slaughter by federal agents, but I guess they learned they can't just massacre people and get away with it. . . so they backed down.

The article then quotes a guy from the "Southern Poverty Law Center," the same group that lists as dangerous extremists military veterans, constitutionalists, Tea Party groups, and even my buddy at Constitution Club.  To be honest, I am kind of insulted they haven't labeled me as such, yet.  Here's the quote from the article: "It is a rejection of any kind of democratic compromise and the endorsement of the use of weapons and violence to get your way," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a coalition member.

Think about his statement, for a moment.  He is saying that daring to stand against the federal government, and demand the federal government to act in a constitutional manner is a "rejection of any kind of democratic compromise."  Then he added, "and the endorsement of the use of weapons and violence to get your way."  Well, first of all there has been no violence.  Second, Mr. Potok is suggesting that the right action is always to sit down, shut up, and do what the federal government tells you to do, no matter what.

How is that American?

In response, "Emerick said the Oath Keepers do not condone violence and require that guards be vetted and pass a background check. She said she thought critics might be basing their opinions on "other incidents around the country."  More than 100 protesters gathered at the BLM offices in Medford last month, prompting the agency to close its operations for the day.  Local community groups say some residents were scared when out-of-state guards were recruited to watch the mine."

"Some residents" could mean three busy body liberals who have an unwarranted fear of firearms, and had liberty.

"It seems like they're digging in and they're trying to stay," Jessica Campbell, organizer for the Rural Organizing Project, an Oregon activists group, said of the Oath Keepers.

I hope they are digging in.  I hope the Oath Keepers stand firm, and keep pushing back against the unconstitutional federal department of the Bureau of Land Management.  I give my highest support to the Oath Keepers, while condemning Reuters ridiculous, slanted, and politically manipulative article about this confrontation in southern Oregon.

Oh, by the way, the 2nd Amendment was specifically written to tell the federal government "hands off our guns" because the populace being armed is "necessary" for the "security of a free State" against a tyrannical federal government.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“The thoughtful reader may wonder, why wasn’t Jefferson’s proposal of ‘No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms’ adopted by the Virginia legislature? They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary