Snowblind: Clear As Crystal

There are times when you have to report a story and whatever you say will be wrong, no matter how hard you try to be objective. There will be those in the court of public opinion who will try and make it their crusade to malign you when you are attempting to report uncomfortable information.

The last time this happened to me and my staff was during the Sandy Hook shootings. There were mixed reactions to my reporting of that case and since we live in time where the extended middle of a story becomes a nuisance to those who make deaths of people a political football.

The court of public opinion has been encouraged to do so. It is an indicator that the police state mentality, which I conclude is a consensus state of mind where due process is selective, has its staunch supporters.

There seems to be a hidden agenda in our country where the media both independent and mainstream is trying to see who can create the most outrage by pandering to both political ideologies and exploiting their bias and prejudice in such a way that it will eventually reach its breaking point.

It can be predicted that incidents such as the Oregon standoff will multiply and when they do those who normally support civil liberties will call upon the government to use deadly force in all instances of revolt.

For example, those who call themselves progressives cheered on the use of deadly force against Ammon Bundy and the other ranchers who supported his cause.

These same progressives have screamed out against police brutality and excessive use of force during the times of Ferguson and Baltimore.

Conservatives properly fight against gun control laws and tyranny, except when they call upon the police state to do something about both Latino and Syrian immigration. Both sides need the police state in order to eliminate those they don’t agree with.

This guarantees what Orwell once said is the Jackboot stomping on one’s face forever.

No one no matter where he lives, whatever his job is, religious affiliation, or even political affiliation – we’ll know who will be under the gun next in a future police state, where the police will continue be like military units and foreign practices will be honored as the United Nations troops will be consulted to police areas where other insurrections will take place.

Situations like the Oregon standoff will eventually become ordinary as the failure of recognizing constitutional law will allow for American citizens to speculate that it has become a suicidal proposition, and will be supplanted by technocratic policies used to justify expanding the leviathan worldwide government.

There will be more Americans that will attempt to resist government policies, with some turning to organized violent activities. The response will be brutal, and the government will be encouraged to become more authoritarian by some its own people for political reasons – this will invite more uprisings and insurrection from people who you wouldn’t even expect to participate.

The Oregon standoff was never a Lexington and Concord nor was it a Fort Sumter. It was a symptom of some serious issues this country has on a political level.

The biggest example of this is how objectivity and lack of available of information has created a massive hate campaign against anyone who has trampled on someone else’s normalcy bias.

From the very beginning of the standoff, I had the horrible job of being critical of the Bundys and inviting Stewart Rhodes from the Oath Keepers and Chris McIntire of the Idaho 3% on to the show. Both are known militia groups and both saying he didn’t support the takeover of the wildlife refuge and predicted how Ammon Bundy’s offensive attack would play out.

I was called an armchair warrior, a coward and a shill for having them on the show and even though there was harsh criticism about their stand, the truth is they were right about what would happen.

I was also being told that for all of the things I have said about standing up against tyranny, my critical views made me less of a patriot. I guess you have to support a standoff that obviously was haphazardly organized, ill-conceived with no real defined goals, instigated without one bit of concern for the fact they threw down the gauntlet, basically sending the message they wanted a fight.

No cause, no real plan, and no intended goals which is the worst possible way to launch a fight against federal corruption. I spent 5 hours saying as much and at the same time, thinking that when the worst comes to Bundy and his insurgent cowboy crew, I will still be wrong with an objective and critical assessment.

If you sympathize with Bundy and his crew you are a terrorist sympathizer. If you sympathize and still think his plans were flawed you are a coward and not a true patriot.

Well, I committed the horrible sin of both sympathizing to a certain degree the idea of standing up to the BLM, and at the same time agreeing with Stewart Rhodes and Chris McIntire. It was a dangerous plan and I believe they were lucky that more didn’t die in the end.

Strategic errors get people killed; this is the case for both the F.B.I and the Bundy crew.

That is why LaVoy Finicum was shot and killed by police officers. This is why the armchair viewers in the court of public opinion will say “he went for his gun” while others will say that he lost his balance, doubled over from his first gunshot wound and was shot again.

Whether or not you say the police were correct, or that Finicum was brutally murdered with disproportionate force, he died as the eye witnesses say he did, with his arms raised.

For the progressives it was Michael Brown’s death that transformed the slogan “hands up, don’t shoot.”

Strangely, none of it applies to suspected criminal, LaVoy Finicum as comments are he deserved to die no matter if his hands and arms were raised or not. It appeared the political right said the same thing about Mike Brown; he was called a criminal too and yet became the darling of the media and another poster child for police brutality.

Does a life lost on the side of the road in rural Oregon matter? Not when it is a political football for progressives who see him as an example of domestic terrorism.

The words “terrorism” and “terrorist” are convenient political terms that are used only when it is convenient to force multiply an intense crisis or situation. What seems to be ignored here is that Bundy and his crew will be labeled terrorists which will cloud the issue of having them be nothing but cannon fodder for a nationwide government crackdown, which in turn will spark copycat events more organized, more advanced, more publicized and more divisively reported by the mainstream media.

Facts and the media no longer congruently connect. The public opinion is based on who controls the story, and this is why blurry footage taken from a plane of a man jumping out of a vehicle with his hands up, reaching down for either a gun or to keep his balance will be reported as an attempt to fire on officers.

This is why we know who controls the story, and who wants to control the court of public opinion.

That is why we will hear a story from a frightened Victoria Sharp on Ground Zero giving her version of the story from the vehicle that was stopped, and the police not wanting to comment on the situation for a balanced view.

Their version of the story is saved for the mainstream media. Their version of the story was not heard on my show; because they were too busy arresting Jason Patrick, a guest that was scheduled to appear on Ground Zero the night armored vehicles stormed the wildlife refuge.

The PIO was asked to comment. He didn’t. We wanted a balanced view, and that is why Daniel Lewis Crumpton stated that he did not agree with some of my views. It is interesting that even though I had Connie Bundy’s account and Victoria Sharp’s account of what happened, I was conveniently ignored when asked for a police assessment, and was blasted with e-mails telling me that I should eat crow, that I was wrong, and that it is obvious LaVoy Finicum pulled a gun.

With no sound, all the time codes on the video blocked out, and the blurry views from the plane above, I am told it was obvious that LaVoy Finicum deserved his death. With mainstream media reports of Finicum being on his knees or the reports of him lunging at officers, it was obvious, from the other reports that it was a routine traffic stop that resulted in a shoot out – far from being the truth it was obvious.

Is it really obvious? Is it truthfully clear as crystal? Or are we all snowblind?

What is obvious is who controls the information in this situation. It certainly isn’t me, and the ridicule that I and several others have received trying to report what the mainstream won’t is in my opinion self-defeating.

It is evident that a lot of people in this country emote, feel and believe the mainstream narrative, rather than think, reason and break out of the police state dialectic. It is also evident that people tend to want to figure out someone’s political beliefs before they support someone and listen to what they are truly saying.

It is programming that creates the hate filled e-mails, tweets and Facebook entries sent to those who choose to be messengers. It also demonstrates how easily people can be manipulated by having their prejudices confirmed in order to stir up darker and more enraged emotions.

This entire story indicates to me that we are all capable of biting a baited hook reflexively without taking the time to analyze, reflect, ponder, repeat the process and then critically draw conclusions.

There is no majority right or wrong analysis ruling in the case of the Bundy standoff, only a bullying minority that uses counter posturing to stroke and coddle their normalcy bias.

If you want to know the truth about why I can sympathize with these occupiers and still consider their actions flawed is that I feel the federal government has no right controlling lands of counties and states. It should only be that the federal government be able to push their statutory rules on federal possessions only.

I have always felt that the controls over the land and common law Americans are simply draconian and out of control, and no one cares enough to say something or do anything.

The problem is no one can even begin to understand what laws benefit them and what laws are there to create conflict and derision. The majority voluntarily gives consent to the corrupt leadership to educate them on such matters and so the media will water-down and obfuscate the issues most important to the public.

This is because all government ultimately depends on the consent of the governed. But we have somehow surrendered our decisions in matters of policy and have left it up to those we call our authorities.

Anyone who questions or does not give consent to their policies gets tagged. Some rebel, some have ill-conceived plans for insurrection, some are tased, some are hit with pepper spray and some are killed.

The rest of us consider ourselves as innocent bystanders, but how innocent are we really when we cheer on the deaths of anyone, including those we have been programmed into believing are armed militants or terrorists.

If terrorism has any reasonable definition, it is the use of violence against innocent non combative individuals for a political purpose. Terrorist acts are the killing and or injuring noncombatant individuals, or destroying their property, in an effort to effect political change.

Does this definition fit the Bundy brigade?

I guess your opinion is yours, but I would say that a blurry line exists and the authorities are going to do their best to un-blur it for their agenda.

In the video that has been provided we see the flash bombs, and a man falling to his death after allegedly reaching for a gun – that appears to be the only violence that took place in this whole ordeal.

LaVoy Finicum appearing to reach for his gun seems to be the worst of allegations. They are allegations against a citizen who many agree broke the law. However, can we also make the allegation that at the government is out to make an example of these occupiers? The government does not tolerate the resistance of rural ranchers and farmers to the aggressive tactics of the government and the radical “environmentalist” movement, which obviously aims at eliminating the few private landowners that remain in defiance of the rules of sustainability.

How are the ranchers and farmers going to sustain themselves when their lands are taken over for mining and the growing of genetically modified crops?

What power do they have when the BLM revokes their permits, block water usage and does everything they can to force them off their land?

These ranchers and farmers provide us with our food, and it appears that the government is in the business of scarcity.

When the media decides to label them militants or terrorists, they have already given them a death sentence in the court of public opinion and this is why there is cheering and support for the authorities and what happened to LaVoy Finicum.

That to me, is as clear as crystal.

Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org