(sad head shake) I’ll handle my enemies. Lord save me from my friends…

So Harry Reid tottered to a microphone, shook his wizened finger and wheezed that what went on in Nevada was “domestic terrorism.” “They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” he repeated, because repetition proves it’s true.

The fact that it came out of Reid’s mouth was sufficient proof for me that it was not true, of course. And when he offered as proof of his assertion the dual facts that: a) Bundy is defying the law, and b) the protesters used children as human shields, I gave my monitor an insulting smirk. “The first is self-evident, and no sign of terrorism,” I muttered. “As to the second, pull the other one, Harry. You can do better than that.”

And then this morning I learned that the accusation about human shields, while probably still as false as everything else he has ever said, is not something Reid just pulled out of his ass.

No. It seems to be something our oft-quoted buddy Richard Mack pulled out of his ass.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”


Things have come to a pretty pass when the adult contingent is represented by Mike Vanderboegh

I have spoken with folks who were in that meeting and they flatly deny that anything of the kind happened. One said “we were all blindsided by that when we saw the video later.” Another said, “It didn’t happen that I heard.” Another speculated that the “strategizing” about using women and children as human shields must have occurred inside Mack’s own head, saying, “I can tell you that I never heard Mack make such a proposal . . . and if he had it would have been shot down.”

Anything else we can do for you, Harry?

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to (sad head shake) I’ll handle my enemies. Lord save me from my friends…

  1. MamaLiberty says:

    I keep reminding folks that a free society will be populated with all kinds of people, all kinds of ideas, opinions and agendas… ALL kinds. We don’t get to choose only the most wise, clean cut, intelligent or benevolent to live among us. The dumb and dumber you will always have with you… at least to some degree.

    That will be taken care of by the law of unintended consequences (Darwin award) and self defense for those who aggress against others. For everyone else, we just have to live and let live… and not live too close together.

  2. Emily Summer says:

    Do you really think we are still living in a free society? Really?

  3. I don’t know, exactly, if I want there to be some further story on that, or not. I’d like to think better of Mack, but maybe that’s just because I want to think better of everybody. (Cain’t hep it, it’s my nature.)

    And, to quote the Zucker brothers, that’s just about as important as a truckload of dead rats in a tampon factory.

  4. Keith says:

    Where to begin to unravel such a tangle?

    First, Who sent the thugs in?

    Second, why were the thugs sent in? I don’t think tortoises or wasting $3M over an estimated $1M in outstading grazing fees had anything to do with it.

    Thirdly, who sold “public” land off cheap?

    Whatever comes out of Mack’s geet big gob, doesn’t change those points.

    Now to Mack.
    I’m not American, for an only occasional visitor to your side of the pond, I’m probably pretty well read on the various strands who are represented at the Bundy Ranch.

    I find the believers in “divine right of piece of paper” deeply confused, and little different from Ried – both implicitly believe in the rightness of coercion and aggression.

    Mack, it appears, claims to be a constitutionalist, as well as someone who seeks to be in a position of legalized coercion.

    If adults of whatever gender, want to take part – what the hell is anyone’s problem with that. Who is anyone to say that possession of two X chromosomes should prevent someone taking part, in just the same way that colour of skin or “social class” of parents is irrelevant to a reasoning adult’s none aggressive actions.

    That’s very different to being involountarily placed in such a position (as any SWAT raid would do!).

    I don’t know much about Mack the man, what is his personality type? – is he a narcissist, seeking to preen himself in front of the cameras? to present himself as “leader”? as “the only one”?

    He’s a cop – presumably he as and Reid, are well aware that the thugs the defenders were going up against will have practiced to fire on children, expectant mums, old people etc “without hesitation”? http://freedominourtime.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/no-hesitation.html

    If he genuinely does preen himself in front of a camera while sounding like Hezbollah, then perhaps it’s time for more responsible individuals, to ask him to leave?

    Whatever else about Mike Vanderboegh, to the best of my knowledge, he’s always been consistent in calling for aggressors to step back from any situation likely to spark a revolt.

  5. greg says:

    I have to agree with ML on this one.

    But you would think that a guy as high profile as Mack would know not to say something wile being interviewed, because you know they will edit the vid to use against him.

    This vid will never go away, ever.

  6. Buck. says:

    I don’t know much about Mack. Former cop is all I know. It sure looked like that statement was cut from something else. Like they began in the middle of the sentence. What was said before that?
    Was that what he meant to say?
    Further information, like an unedited view of the WHOLE video with him is needed for me to decide for my own thinking if he needs gargle with drain cleaner.
    Because if he was actually saying he wanted to set up a female meat shield for propaganda purposes, he needs to fellate Mr. Plumber.

  7. Bear says:

    RE: “Sheriff” Mack. Apparently a tactically stupid remark. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s usually a little more adroit than that. A bad day, perhaps?

    But the assorted “former cop” criticisms (not only here, but at other ‘Net venues), and the fact that I’m not having a wonderful day, prompts me to wonder:

    Can a “former cop” be “redeemed”, rehabilitated, or is it a matter of once a cop, forever a damned JBT?

  8. Joel says:

    “Can a “former cop” be “redeemed”, rehabilitated, or is it a matter of once a cop, forever a damned JBT?”

    I strongly suspect it depends on the former cop, Bear. A person who likes pushing other people around won’t stop liking it after the uniform comes off. I’m unlikely to ever warm up to him.

    On the other hand if the former cop started out as a fundamentally decent person, maybe once the programming wears off he/she could rejoin the human race.

  9. MamaLiberty says:

    No Emily, it’s not a free country now. It won’t ever be a truly free country (world) until people take personal responsibility for their own lives, and leave everyone else alone to do the same. And that includes people who would rather be “ruled” by someone else. The key is that they must be free to choose their own masters, just not able to force others to join them in slavery.

    I’ve been at this freedom activism for more than 50 years, and it has been obvious to me for most of that time that we must truly “live and let live” if we wish to break the statist mold. If a neighbor attacks you or damages your property, you must defend yourself/family/community. Otherwise, what anyone else does, says, wants, thinks is nobody else’s business.

    I’ve met Mack and Stewart. Yes, both still serve the “constitution.” They are both still immersed in the “most dangerous superstition” that some people have, must have authority over others, for their own good. Unfortunately, most people accept the myth that “government” of some kind can and should have any legitimate authority over them. They merely want it to be kind and fit their ideas of what is good for “society,” rather than leave individuals alone – free to associate and work together voluntarily.

    They are not self owners, and don’t recognize that as the essential element of freedom. They are good men, and consistent with what they believe… but it is not actually liberty and justice for all that they seek. Not yet, anyway.

  10. Buck. says:

    “Can a “former cop” be “redeemed”, rehabilitated, or is it a matter of once a cop, forever a damned JBT?”

    I have former and current cops in my family. One was irredeemable in every sense of the word. The best thing he did for society was die. Another, well….I don’t know how bad he was as a cop but he became a Captain in the California Highway Patrol……someone doesn’t get that way by being cool. He is pretty anti-cop now. His granddaughter is married to another guy of similar rank in a metro department. He is an extreme authoritarian. I won’t be at all surprised if upon retirement, being a very right republican if he does not become very anti-authoritarian as a Cali resident out of uniform.

    If you want to ponder redeemable, ask someone who has had their rights trampled by the cop in question.

To the stake with the heretic!