Ammon Bundy and his merry men vs. the Sheriff of Malheur (Part 1)

Am I the only one who can’t make heads or tails about what Ammon Bundy is attempting to accomplish with the takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge administration building.  Yes, I’ve read the newspaper articles; but to me it still doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.  And, when you take over federal property, attempting to intimidate the authorities with guns, doesn’t that make you a ‘terrorist’ (if at very least a terrorist with a small ‘t’)?  Perhaps, if Bundy could boil his demands down to a brief, coherent, published manifesto, we could all think it over.

It really is kind of funny.  Did you see the picture, today, of the armed militant with the Pacific Patriots Network on the front page of the Oregonian newspaper?  Boy, that guy is right out of central casting for a Chevy Chase movie.  Question:  Do any of these guys have actual jobs?  Yes, of course, that’s none of my business.

On the other hand, I completely understand that this whole matter could suddenly turn deadly serious (Wounded Knee, Waco and Ruby Ridge).

As an FBI Agent, I spent a couple of months at Wounded Knee and have some knowledge of what a siege situation is like and how it can turn from bad to worse.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not entirely on the government’s side.  They have dictated, encroached and overly regulated entirely too much on property rights.  I could go on for a good while – potentially boring every reader into a coma.

It could be said that the federal government’s regulations put the Oregon timber industry out of business.  Towns dried up and died.  Good paying jobs were lost.  Why?  Because some egg-head back East decided that a former worker in an Oregon plywood mill could just as easily subsist on the salary he potentially could make at McDonalds or Jiffy Lube.  And, or, he could go to a community college at age 50 and learn how to become a plumber’s assistant.

Oh, and, whatever happened to the Spotted Owl?  It’s living happily in the virgin Oregon forests I would assume.

I worked many years for a large forest products company as their Western Region Security Manager.  As a corporate employee, I was headquartered in Portland and was responsible for eleven western states.  But, let’s just take Oregon for example.  When I started with the company there were 10 or 12 mills, plus various facilities and timber operations throughout Oregon with literally thousands of employees with pretty darn good jobs.  As my own ‘early retirement’ grew near, I happened to be the last employee with the company still in Oregon.  I had been retained to provide a security presence for all the closures and terminations.

Regarding the Malheur imbroglio, I have some thoughts on what law enforcement and the FBI are probably now thinking.  Top of the list almost certainly:  ‘Let’s not let this situation blow up in our faces.’  To use a metaphor, it’s a carefully orchestrated dance.  The FBI provides the music for now, but Ammon Bundy is leading.

To be continued…

True Nelson

Mark Zuckerberg / Facebook Billionaire / Extends Invitation / Muslims Welcome Here!

Interesting recent comment from Mark Zuckerberg (compassionate to a fault and incidentally a multi-billionaire), he stated:  “… add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world as the leader of Facebook I want you to know that you are always welcome here.”

Of course, the rest of us know or should know, that the very gracious Mr. Zuckerberg and his family are continually surrounded by high-tech security systems and armed guards.  So, they don’t (of course) share all the same concerns as the majority of Americans regarding potential terrorist attacks.

Moreover, Facebook is a business requiring massive participation from people who have little else to do with their time.  And, there are billions of Muslims out there who are current or potential customers. Ka-Ching!

Zuckerberg has extended an invitation for them to come here.  With all his money, why doesn’t he go and live there?

True Nelson

Syed Rizwan Farook's father describes his son's beliefs. And no surprise there.

Have you ever noticed, that in almost every instance when there is a ‘terrorist attack,’ relatives and friends of the perpetrator invariably say something like:  ‘Gosh, I never noticed anything unusual about him.’  This, of course, is self-serving, even logical.  After all, no one wants to admit that the person they knew gave indications that he (or she in the most recent tragedy) was a danger to themselves and to others.  Who wants to be ridiculed by the news media, for not doing something to prevent the murder of innocent people?

So, it was interesting and highly unusual to read some of the statements by Syed Rizwan Farook (father of the San Bernardino terrorist of the same name, Syed Rizwan Farook).  The elder Farook was interviewed by an Italian reporter with the publication La Stampa.

• "He (the father) said he (the terrorist Syed) shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel, the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of his other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.”
• "I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist, the elder Farook told the newspaper.  Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."
• “The father said his family was destroyed when his son sided against him with his equally religious mother.  Rizwan was the mama's boy (the father said), and she is very religious like him.  Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.”

As recent as last night, the President reiterated that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’  OK, I guess it depends upon one’s own interpretation.  I’m not sure where the President got his interpretation of fundamentalist Islam; but maybe he is just telling us what he wants us to believe – you know, keep the lid on things until he can exit stage right (or left).

True Nelson

Mass Murder by Islamic Terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik / San Bernardino, California 12/2/15

San Bernardino, California:  The mass murder by Islamic terrorists (Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik) is on everyone’s minds.  It’s the hot topic of discussion around the proverbial watercooler.  In fact I had a lengthy discussion with friends this morning at coffee.  The San Bernardino situation, chaotic at first, is beginning to come into focus.  I’d just like to make a couple of comments.

Working in corporate security, after leaving the FBI, ‘workplace violence’ prevention was always a priority of my job.  The Fortune 100 Company that I worked for at the time sent me to the best schools and seminars on the subject.  Seminars that were presented by prominent psychiatrists and experienced law enforcement personnel.  I learned a lot.

When the first reports of the shooting in San Bernardino were released, it was immediately clear the incident was a terrorist act and not ‘workplace violence.’  If it had been workplace violence, it would have been an action entirely without precedent.  Law enforcement knew this.  The FBI knew this.  It kind of surprised me – no not really I guess – that initially the Obama administration and indirectly the Justice Department and the FBI (to a certain extent) parsed words – hoping, I imagine, that it was workplace violence; and not a terrorist attack.

Why?  Simply put:  ‘Workplace Violence’ is a finite event.  A ‘terrorist attack’ is an infinite event, far more serious, and lacking in any clear resolution.  A ‘terrorist attack’ is a symptom, an indicator of more to come.

The only other thing I would like to mention, at this time, is extending my sincere compliments to law enforcement for their competent and courageous handling of this tragic situation.  Very well done.  Something to tell your grandkids about.  You not only stopped these terrorists, but undoubtedly prevented some other equally devastating events planned by Farook and Malik.

True Nelson

An Apology about my Previous Post / “President Obama, you are wrong!”

If you read my previous post (prior to my subsequent correction), you will have noted that I obviously confused Serbia with Syria.  I was attempting to state my personal, and I believe justifiable, opinion that Syrian Christian refugees should be given priority for admission to the United States.

I don’t, of course, have an editor to read my stuff.  I was tired and grand-kids were visiting.  Grandchildren have a way of disturbing one’s focus – as most grandparents could attest.  That said, I referred to Serbia rather than Syria.  I do know the difference.  And, I have corrected the error.

As an aside, Serbia’s population is approximately 90% Christian.  To my knowledge they are not being persecuted because of their faith – as is the case in Syria.

In addition to my apology for maligning the wrong country, someone close to me said that my comments about President Obama were unkind and just plain mean, and that I shouldn’t have said them.  Said someone might be right.  Barrack Obama is currently the President and deserving of due respect.  However...

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

True Nelson

President Obama, you are wrong! Syrian Christian refugees should be given first priority.

I disagree with the President.  We should give priority to Christians fleeing persecution in Syria. And I’ll tell you why.

I suppose that I should say, up front, that I am an Agnostic (with some spiritual tendencies I suppose).  Oh, I know, no one particularly cares; but it does give a certain frame of reference to my comments.

First, I’m convinced that Americans will face increased security risks with the importation of Syrian refuges.  Some say 10,000 Syrian refugees.  Some say 100,000 or more.  And, yes, there will be some radical Muslim extremists among them – no doubt about that.  ISIS will use the refugee situation as an opportunity to import terrorists (sleepers) who will strike when the opportunity presents itself.  Come on, think about it, why wouldn’t they?  Americans are generally pretty gullible, hobbled by their penchant for political correctness – and ISIS is well aware of that fact.  On the positive side for us, this situation will be far worse for the Europeans.

Why should Christians receive priority?  Well, we are basically a Judeo-Christian nation – and have been since our founding.  Moreover, United States Law gives priority to those refugees fleeing religious persecution.  Who has suffered the most, been murdered, tortured, raped and enslaved by ISIS solely due to their religious belief?  Yes, of course, the Christians.  Are not they the ones we should help first?  The President has said such ‘discrimination’ would be against everything that the United States stands for.  He is wrong.

Can Syrian Christians be positively verified as such?  I’m not sure, but I believe they (Syrian Christians) are fairly clannish and have been generally residing in certain areas of Syria.  Someone, probably a Syrian expert, could probably identify a Christian refugee – as opposed to a Muslim refugee.  Should this be an absolute qualifier for refugee status and admission to the U.S.?  No, some Muslims, principally parents with children, should also be considered for admission after appropriate vetting – a second priority.  Unaccompanied Muslim men between approximately 20 and 50 years of age should be the last priority for admission to the U.S.

I heard the comment bandied-about that 23 million Americans believe that President Barrack Obama is a Muslim.  I don’t know where they dug-up that statistic; but let’s just say that the statistic is true.  I don’t happen to believe the President is a Muslim.  On the other hand, I don’t happen to believe he is a Christian.  Being perceived as a Christian was just one more concession the President had to make in order to pursue his political ambitions.  No, my opinion is that when the President thinks about a higher-being, he simply looks in the mirror.

True Nelson

'Gun Control' / Why Discuss? / Nobody is Listening

After reading an article in the LA Times by Jonathan Zimmerman – well, it really caused me to pause and consider.

What so impressed me about Dr. Zimmerman’s (who is a professor at New York University) article?  It was interesting, about ‘gun control,’ and a little bit different take.  Dr. Zimmerman made the observation that whether you’re a gun advocate or a gun control proponent, we are generally wasting our time attempting to argue the finer points of the ‘gun control’ issue.  In other words, nobody is listening – certainly no one whose views are the opposite of yours.  He compared the ‘gun control’ issue with ‘Prohibition.’

Zimmerman said:

“… a book by a University of California – San Diego sociologist named Joseph Gusfield convinced me that Prohibition wasn’t really aimed at ridding America of beer, wine and whiskey.  It was instead a ‘Symbolic Crusade’ by native-born Protestants, who seized on prohibition to affirm their historic dominance over immigrants and Roman Catholics.”

“… this controversy isn’t really about guns, any more than Prohibition was about drink.  It’s about different ways of seeing the world and – most of all – about who will gain the symbolic upper hand.”

“The question brings us back to Gusfield, who reminded us that politics are a battle for symbolic as well as material advantage.  Even if alcohol prohibition could never make America ‘dry,’ it made its adherents feel as if the country was still theirs.”

If this is true, and it may very well be true, there is no point for me to belabor the many issues and potential problems associated with gun control.  After all, no one, other than some in the choir, are listening to me anyway.

Nonetheless, I’d still like to make a couple of comments.  And, oh yes, I wanted to tell you why I left the NRA.

• You can't ban 'assault weapons' if you can't define what they are.  They are basically a semi-automatic rifle.  The simple description of  'military style' just won't cut it.
• Were you aware that rifles are seldom used in crime - maybe two percent of the time - if that?  Assault weapons, whatever your definition, are hardly ever used.
• High capacity magazines could be banned, but they are even less commonly used in crime – particularly in a rifle.  Semi-automatic pistols often hold 10 to 14 rounds.  To reduce that capacity would require a redesign, and ‘grandfathering’ millions of pre-existing pistols.  Any legislation along those lines would have minimal effect on crime.  Moreover, ammo magazines can be switched within a matter of seconds.
• Background checks on all gun sales is theoretically possible; but there is no evidence said action would have a meaningful effect on crime.  Gun owners, to sell guns, would be at the mercy of gun stores; and they could, potentially cheat, or extract maximum profits from average gun owners who are attempting to comply with the law when selling a gun.  It would, as a result, create a gun ‘black market’ even larger than the one that already exists.
• Universal gun registration would cause a civil upheaval bigger than prohibition.  Honest citizens would become criminals.  And current criminals would benefit all around, be emboldened, and undeterred in their previous activities.
• Bottom line:  The real answer is strict enforcement of the current law.  Note my blog’s sidebar – Three Laws for Effective Gun Control.

Why I left the NRA:  The NRA was running a quarter page advertisement for a ‘Street Sweeper,’ large capacity ammo-drum shotgun (depicted above) in their monthly magazine.  This gun has only one purpose, anti-personnel.  It cannot be used for hunting or any sporting events that I’m aware of.  It was extremely poor taste on the part of the NRA in that the ‘Street Sweeper’ would only appeal to someone who is, in my opinion, a few bricks short of a load.  Should it be banned?  I guess it could be said that it is no more deadly than a regular shotgun.  I just felt the ad was over-the-top offensive; and I couldn’t believe the NRA needed the advertising money that badly.  I just wasn’t sure that I could even be a fringe member of the organization – until, that is, the NRA starts exercising at least a modicum of discretion.

True Nelson