Althouse: "We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front... If they are going to start shooting..."

April 15, 2014

"We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front... 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."

70 comments:

Mark said...: Because it is not a war on women when you use them as cannon fodder, right? You only love your wife when you have her get shot for the cameras.; 4/15/14, 7:34 AM
Jason said...: That was the correct strategy. Straight-ahead asymmetrical warfare best practices.

Federales should plan on that and adjust tactics, techniques and procedures accordingly.; 4/15/14, 7:40 AM
Jason said...: Look, libtards, don't get sentimental about this and attack the Tea Party types for their brutality. Putting women in the infantry for no good goddamn reason was YOUR hare-brained idea to begin with!; 4/15/14, 7:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Lessons from the left of the 60's.

When the police closed in on SDS types the cry would be 'Chicks up front'.; 4/15/14, 8:02 AM
Mark said...: Jason, I think there is a difference between allowing women to fight and making sure the front line is nothing but women.

Maybe not to republicans, I guess. Enjoy that war on women meme that you keep going.; 4/15/14, 8:07 AM
Carnifex said...: Besides...how well did it work at Ruby Ridge and Waco. Feds shot a woman holding a baby in her arms. Janet Reno walks away to become Pres. of the U...(maybe a sick kind of justice there). Feds burned down buildings full of women and children, in Waco. Anybody go to prison? NO? Color me shocked.

Governments exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to exercise force. If that happens to be on its own people, so be it.; 4/15/14, 8:12 AM
John Enright said...: I have been told this was standard thinking in the 60s anti war protests, although shooting wasn't expected then, just beating. So it's an established line of thought, but it runs against a lot of ingrained feeling, so I'm not sure this actually happens much.; 4/15/14, 8:13 AM
garage mahal said...: Lawless, delusional vigilante Tea Party Militia leader is a coward? No one could have predicted.; 4/15/14, 8:36 AM
Bob Boyd said...: You've heard of suicide by cop?
This is divorce by cop.; 4/15/14, 8:36 AM
Mary Martha said...: If the women were making the choice to stand front and center... then how can liberals have a problem? Their body, their choice.

It would only be brutality is the men were forcing the women to the front against their will.

One should consider perhaps these women truly believed in what they were doing. One side of the political spectrum doesn't have monopoly over all women (no matter how much they tell us they do).; 4/15/14, 8:36 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Ah, but they're conservative, possibly even Christian women, so the government can slaughter them with impunity. Janet Reno can explain this for those who might be confused.; 4/15/14, 8:37 AM
machine said...: Stay classy San Diego!; 4/15/14, 8:39 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Bullshit. The headline is "Bundy Ranch 'Militia' Considered Using Women As Human Shield". It comes from TPM, which is a bullshit factory.

I heard the Nazis are installing a Chinese solar plant in Nevada to benefit Hamas.; 4/15/14, 8:45 AM
Big Mike said...: Althouse remembers "Chicks to the front!" Worked fine for Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, and the rest of the Anti-War Movement back in the 1960's. Heck, one can say that -- like Charlie Manson -- Bill Ayers did nearly all of the Weather Underground dirty work through adoring females.; 4/15/14, 8:45 AM
Æthelflæd said...: The Kit Laney/Diamond Bar Ranch vs the Forest Service saga in New Mexico heats up again. The local sheriff is refusing to allow the Forest Service to sell off the cattle. Things are getting verruh interestin' indeed.; 4/15/14, 8:50 AM
Hagar said...: The media are going to try to make this all about Cliven Bundy and the militia types, but it really is about the frauds perpetrated on the American people, especially here in the west, under the guise of the endangered species act, the clean air and water acts, "navigable waters of the U.S.," AGW, etc. and so forth.; 4/15/14, 8:52 AM
stlcdr said...: It's called 'women with guns'.

I notice in the article that militia is in quotes. This implies that the 'militia' is actually a militia, but they wanted to spit the word out as if it is a dirty, underhand thing that the subjects should not be part of unless called upon.

I suspect that a modern militia would be composed of men AND women; from each according to their capabilities. Period.

But as already noted, 'putting women on the front line to be shot' is the lefts idea of equal opportunity, but when faced with the stark reality closer to home, they are horrified that someone would do such a thing. The mental dichotomy is what makes them so angry and outwardly hateful to those who don't warrant such treatment.; 4/15/14, 8:56 AM
Oso Negro said...: Shieldmaidens of the right!; 4/15/14, 9:07 AM
Michael said...: Hilarious. It has been demonstrated that women (or women and children) are not deterrents to militarized Federal agents. See Waco. See Ruby Ridge.; 4/15/14, 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Is this Reid's disinformation campaign to undermine the Bundys? Can you trust TPM?; 4/15/14, 9:18 AM
tim maguire said...: Do I trust TPM? No, I don't trust their spin, but I doubt they made up the quote. Far more likely, many things were strategized, some of them were talked about in front of the press, this one made it onto TPM.

Far more interesting is the reaction of people like Mark and Garage who take what is a time-honored tradition in political protest, embraced enthusiastically by every activist they admire, and pretend it's some outrageous invention of the right.; 4/15/14, 9:41 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Is this Reid's disinformation campaign to undermine the Bundys? Can you trust TPM?"

Did you see where TPM got the quote? It's linked in the article? The question is can you trust Glenn Beck.

Back to you.; 4/15/14, 9:44 AM
Tank said...: @Althouse.

I trust Beck no less than I trust anything our gov't tells us.

Back to you.; 4/15/14, 9:47 AM
Skeptical Voter said...: Women, children, babes in arms, your pet Chihuaha. All in a day's work to a BLM sniper.

Which makes one ask--why does the BLM have snipers? Why did they bring 8 frickin' helicopters to the party? Is this a peaceful removal of cattle from a rancher's range, or is it a replay of the helicopter assault in Apocalypse Now?

Who in the heck appointed these GS-10s as judge, jury and executioner with the right to pull the trigger on a citizen? Just because Obama can order a drone be used to kill x,y and z out in the Yemeni desert, doesn't mean that a BLM sniper can do the same in Nevada. The militarization of Federal agencies is beyond stupid.; 4/15/14, 9:49 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Did you see where TPM got the quote?

The question is whether I can trust Glenn Beck, not whether I can trust TPM, or some wacky ex-sheriff.

This is a made-up story. Nobody got shot. The federal guys kept control, mostly, and so did the protesters. The feds put up a "first amendment zone" that was laughably stupid.

Now TPM is working to make those crazy westerners seem like gun-totin' loonies.

You fell for this?; 4/15/14, 9:52 AM
garage mahal said...: The question is can you trust Glenn Beck

The clip appears to be pretty clear.; 4/15/14, 10:07 AM
cubanbob said...: Talking about woman and children first....

Ahh Garage is frothing at the mouth this morning.; 4/15/14, 10:10 AM
Big Mike said...: The question is can you trust Glenn Beck.

Hell no! Nor do I trust Josh Marshall to quote anyone, much less Glenn Beck, accurately if it advances his argumentum as nauseum.

Of course, if the women in front included Randi Rogers, Sarah Harp, or Julie Golob then the best advice for the government agents comes from the 11th Doctor Who: "Basically, Run."; 4/15/14, 10:11 AM
Birkel said...: Why should I impose my heteronormative views on the Bundys? If the women in the group think it's in their own best interests to be the first victims of the federal government, then why should I disagree with them?

Their bodies. Their choices. Right?; 4/15/14, 10:23 AM
garage mahal said...: This is a made-up story

So who was in the clip saying those words?; 4/15/14, 10:27 AM
Birkel said...: As I understand it the US War College and the Joint Chiefs have a strategy for the invasion of Canada. That doesn't mean the plans will be executed, however. And the people of Toronto can probably sleep easy.

Were the women actually placed in front during a live firefight?; 4/15/14, 10:31 AM
William said...: It seems to me that the story--the big story--is the government' s ham fisted tactics concerning a tax dispute and some grazing cows. What is it about the ranchers that makes them more unworthy and unwise than the Feds? Are they behaving like a bunch of fucking kulaks and hiding their seed grain?; 4/15/14, 10:38 AM
Æthelflæd said...: Skeptical voter said, " The militarization of Federal agencies is beyond stupid."

Yep, whether it is the DEA, Forest Service, BLM, NOAA, Fish & Wildlife, or what have you. It is beyond insane.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203518404577094861497383678

"Agents from NOAA, in fact, along with the Fish and Wildlife Service, raided the Miami business of Morgan Mok in 2008, seeking evidence she had broken the Endangered Species Act trading in coral.The agents had assault rifles with them, and the case documents indicated her house and business records had been under surveillance over a six-month period, says Ms. Mok....

Ms. Mok says she showed that her coral had been properly obtained. She paid a $500 fine and served one year of probation for failing to complete paperwork for an otherwise legal transaction."

Out.of.Control.; 4/15/14, 10:40 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "I trust Beck no less than I trust anything our gov't tells us."

Given their respective records any objective observer would trust Beck far more than the government.; 4/15/14, 10:42 AM
damikesc said...: Remember when Dems claimed to support "The little guy"?

I guess those days ended.; 4/15/14, 10:47 AM
Birkel said...: Perhaps imminent domain can be visited upon the Supreme Court Justices so they think to revise their odious Kelo decision.

Perhaps an endangered species can be found on the Potomac so that buildings must be removed (like the cows were to be removed) to protect that DC species.

The Rules for Radicals need to be used against the Reactionaries in the government.; 4/15/14, 10:48 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: So it's an established line of thought, but it runs against a lot of ingrained feeling, so I'm not sure this actually happens much.

Don't think that it would have happened. A lot of the "militia" were ranchers, and they tend to be pretty old-school. Women are treated equal, on one hand (first state to give Women the vote was Wyoming, the state with the bucking horse plates), but on the other hand, there is still a lot of chivalry there. A lot more than you see in much of the country.

That said, if the women insisted, then maybe. They are the boss, in a lot of those families.

Most of the people who showed up to protest were apparently not members of any organized, right wing, militia. Rather, the term is most likely being used (at least on the right) to describe an unorganized group of people spontaneously showing up armed (which they would likely do in NV for this sort of thing). Of course, on the left, there has long been a perceived threat of "militias", which in the 1970s and 1980s were likely to be skinhead white supremacists. This is most likely much closer to a spontaneous Tea Party protest where a lot of the people showed up armed (again, because this is rural Nevada).; 4/15/14, 10:54 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: It seems to me that the story--the big story--is the government' s ham fisted tactics concerning a tax dispute and some grazing cows. What is it about the ranchers that makes them more unworthy and unwise than the Feds? Are they behaving like a bunch of fucking kulaks and hiding their seed grain?

Yeh, and the financial involvement of the state's First Son, the infamous Harry Reid. Yesterday, he announced that it wasn't over, which means to me that they have too much money on the line, and the BLM, with his hand picked, former staffer, director, will be back. Probably in the dead of night, or something like that.

Keep your eye on the ball folks. This is about the Reid family being thwarted in making money. Not much more.; 4/15/14, 10:57 AM
Strelnikov said...: That's always been my strategy, regardless of the situation.; 4/15/14, 11:32 AM
The Crack Emcee said...: "We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front... 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."

Because equality.; 4/15/14, 11:34 AM
Christy said...: Too bad Bundy is a dusty, inarticulate, old white guy.; 4/15/14, 12:04 PM
bbkingfish said...: This is a strategy popularized among freedom lovers by Hezbollah and Hamas.; 4/15/14, 12:08 PM
Hagar said...: I think most of the private citizens were just local ranchers, etc., some of whom need to brush up on their civics, but are not violent in any way, but that there also were some "militia" (in quotes) riding in and standing around the edges at least.

It will be interesting to see if any intrepid journalist(s) bother to sort it out and report on who was what.; 4/15/14, 12:47 PM
Seeing Red said...: They forgot the kids. The Muslims did it, the Italians learned that. When it was time to reloads out came the moving black objects.; 4/15/14, 1:07 PM
Seeing Red said...: Equal rights. Women are on the front lines. They are also better shots.; 4/15/14, 1:08 PM
JD said...: Tea Party vigilantism, it's the new brand of right wing nuttery. Good job proving that here is no war on women!; 4/15/14, 1:12 PM
Browndog said...: So who was in the clip saying those words?

Former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack.

Althouse trying to tie this to Bundy is a cheap shot-

Bundy was on our local radio (WJR) this morning, as was asked about this. He said one of his kids told him about that statement last night and was appalled. He said he knows who this guy is, and didn't know "what he's trying to pull". Bundy says "we're not that kind of people".

Clearly trying to sabotage the Bundy reputation.; 4/15/14, 1:33 PM
Phaedrus said...: The more you look at the facts of the Bundy situation from sites sympathetic to conservative views the harder it is defend Bundy.; 4/15/14, 1:36 PM
Anonymous said...: "The question is can you trust Glenn Beck."

No. I don't trust politicians, politician wannabes, celebrities, personalities,... who make huge bucks out of their audience's ignorance. Their truth sides with those who empty their wallets for them.

Unfortunately, in this case, Reid's minions backed down before the claim was tested.; 4/15/14, 1:51 PM
Titus said...: Sounds like the Taliban.; 4/15/14, 2:10 PM
Titus said...: You guys are supporting a big time welfare queen-wow!; 4/15/14, 2:14 PM
Hagar said...: It is not about Bundy and his cows.
It is about Gov't officials and unscrupulous big-time scamsters trading in "mitigation credits" and screwing the local people.; 4/15/14, 2:21 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Human shield is a military and political term describing the deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter the enemy from attacking these targets. It may also refer to the use of persons to literally shield combatants during attacks, by forcing them to march in front of the soldiers. Using this technique is illegal by nations that are parties to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions."

"After World War II, it was claimed by German SS general Gottlob Berger that there was a plan, proposed by the Luftwaffe and approved by Adolf Hitler, to set up special POW camps for captured airmen of the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces in large German cities, to act as human shields against their bombing raids. Berger realized that this would contravene the 1929 Geneva Convention and argued that there was not enough barbed wire—as a result, this plan was not implemented.Wehrmacht and later SS forces extensively used Polish civilians as human shields during Warsaw Uprising when attacking the insurgents' positions..."

Etc. etc.; 4/15/14, 2:51 PM
n.n said...: Sure, why not. This would be a feather in the feminists' cap. They have been working feverishly for the last several years to install women on the front lines. If it's voluntary, how can anyone complain, right?; 4/15/14, 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: If bundy was really serious about keeping the Feds off his land he should build a mosque on it.; 4/15/14, 3:08 PM
garage mahal said...: "After World War II, it was claimed by German SS general Gottlob Berger that there was a plan, proposed by the Luftwaffe and approved by Adolf Hitler, to set up special POW camps for captured airmen of the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces in large German cities, to act as human shields against their bombing raids

Nice. Real nice. Thanks, Tea Party.; 4/15/14, 3:27 PM
victoria said...: Right on, Mark. Couldn't have said it better.

Vicki from Pasadena; 4/15/14, 3:58 PM
Michael The Magnificent said...: "After World War II, it was claimed by German SS general Gottlob Berger that there was a plan, proposed by the Luftwaffe and approved by Adolf Hitler, to set up special POW camps for captured airmen of the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces in large German cities, to act as human shields against their bombing raids

Nice. Real nice. Thanks, National Socialists.

Fify, asshole.; 4/15/14, 4:34 PM
Jaq said...: Is there some film somewhere of the women being placed to the front?; 4/15/14, 5:30 PM
Jason said...: Garage. As usual, you are stupid on stilts.

Women showing up because they want to be there are not the same thing as Allied POWs. You are truly an intellectually dishonest moron.; 4/15/14, 5:32 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: And garage takes the sucker bait without even blinking.

In any event, I'm guessing the "First Amendment Area" thing is going to be a bumpersticker meme very soon.; 4/15/14, 5:42 PM
Jason said...: "Chicks Up Front" has historically been a tactic of the left in this country:

From Salon:

In the 1960's, when the San Francisco Bay Area was a giant, nine county fermentation tank of political and social change, there seemed to be a “protest du jour” going on all the time. There were huge rallies at San Francisco State, Berkeley, San Jose State, even snooty old Stanford, down in Palo Alto. The Yippies were at their height of fame (or infamy, perhaps, if you were an indignant working adult). At times it got out of hand, and the cops usually could be stoked up enough to react unpleasantly in order to break us up. They routinely banged kids over the head with batons and hauled them off for a few hours.

In 1969, then-Governor Ronald Reagan even sent in the National Guard (pictured above) when, in Berkeley, kids were protesting against the university taking over a local vacant lot called Peoples Park, near the UC campus, which served as a camp ground for street people. It got ugly as hell. One kid, sitting on a rooftop watching all the goings-on, was even shotgunned to death by the Berkeley cops.

That was when organizers created a tactic which they thought would keep the blue meanies from beating us all up by putting girls at the head of the demonstration to face off with the cops. “Chicks up front!” became almost a battle cry. (Along with “Don't trust anyone over 30!”) It was the women who were obviously the willing sacrificial lambs.

More:

From the Politically incorrect Guide to the 60s.

http://books.google.com/books?id=fm5qfdx4DcoC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=protests+Chicks+up+front&source=bl&ots=h-X1XScQBE&sig=Awh_XbYH3iHVMAgSuXnjZBb49TU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TLRNU5KeO4ipsAS6yoGYBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=protests%20Chicks%20up%20front&f=false

"One of the more repugnant tactics was to send women to the front of the protest marches. Chanting "Chicks up front," radicals did not make much of an effort to disguise the maneuver. Protesters further back, some wearing helmets in anticipation of violence, then pelted policy with rocks, bricks, hunks of concrete and water balloons filled with human waste."

Remember, these are Holder's and Van Jones' and Frank Marshall's people. The difference: The leftwards were actually violent, and deliberately trying to goad the police into injuring their women. It's a technique of asymmetrical warfare that goes back millennia. And no, morons, it's not "a violation of International law." Geez. There's no limit to lefttard stupidity.

As a tactic, it's neutral. If it's effective, and the women are part of it of their own volition, then fine. It's going to be used regardless. Does anyone remember anyone else killed in the failed Iranian revolution except Nena?

But it's funny to see the usual hypocritical idiots on the left get a case of the vapors.

Fen is correct. He is always correct. The left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.

More:

http://stow.patch.com/groups/steve-on-the-right/p/the-democrat-partys-despicable-chicks-up-front-strategy

http://oldironsides-thesilentmajority.blogspot.com/2014/03/chicks-up-front.html; 4/15/14, 5:45 PM
paminwi said...: In my concealed carry class in Fond du Lac, WI there was an equal # of women in the class. Do we really NEED men to tell us what we stand for? I have been married 34 years and the one thing that has stood steady for all those years is "do not tell me what I want to stand for and how I decide to stand for it". Just support me in the best way for you.

If I want to go for the front of the line to be shot at who the hell do you think you're to tell me not to?

If you respect me, you will respect the stands I choose to make.; 4/15/14, 7:23 PM
paminwi said...: As an additional post let me say I know that the courts have found against Bundy 3x and we need to respect those findings.

I am just saying if a woman wants to fight, let her.; 4/15/14, 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...: If this had been said by Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews or something, people would roll their eyes and dismiss them as ignorant asses.

It wouldn't be evidence of a Democrat war on women.

But because this was said by a private citizen who used to be a Sheriff (Forget that Bundy has repudiated the remarks) and claims to be a member of the Tea Party, it means this is the new platform of the Tea Party.

This is a good and a bad thing of the decentralization of the Tea Party and the fact that it's not a real party.

No one control what individuals say or even lay claim to being members, but at the same time, everyone gets blamed for the radicals.; 4/15/14, 7:56 PM
Hagar said...: Chris Stirewalt had some more to say this evening on The Kelly File as to why Harry Reid cannot afford to have these dumbass ranchers get the best of him on this issue.
Ths could indeed get very ugly before it is over.; 4/15/14, 8:14 PM
garage mahal said...: In any event, I'm guessing the "First Amendment Area" thing is going to be a bumpersticker meme very soon.

OWS ran into those a long time ago. And they didn't get to point rifles at the cops either.; 4/15/14, 8:40 PM
Trashhauler said...: Regarding Bundy's violation of law, you can be very certain that agencies like the BLM and EPA can and will ensure that any obstinate citizen will eventually break the law. I took some training classes with middle managers from those agencies and they were quite clear about it.

Their idea of cooperative engagement is to hold more meetings where they tell people exactly how they must comply. They marshal the help of outside groups to put a veneer of popularity on their actions, but in the end, they see ordinary citizens as obstacles.; 4/15/14, 9:12 PM
jeff said...: "Lawless, delusional vigilante Tea Party Militia leader is a coward? No one could have predicted."

Granted, Garage is an idiot, but I see he has idiot friends as well. If the plan was to start shooting at the BLM from behind women, then you have a parallel with the Palestinians and evil participants in WWII, etc. As the quote clearly says, the fear was that the BLM would start shooting. And in your version of women as shields, you implicitly accept the possibility of just that happening but the only part of the government shooting its citizens you object to is that some of those being shot are women and its the citizens being shot fault for putting them in front. Your perfectly ok with the idea of the shooting. The BLM put sniper rifles on people outside of the "free speech zone" free speechifying and you seem to be perfectly ok with that, also.; 4/16/14, 11:48 AM
bbkingfish said...: Jason said:

"In 1969, then-Governor Ronald Reagan even sent in the National Guard (pictured above) when, in Berkeley, kids were protesting against the university taking over a local vacant lot called Peoples Park, near the UC campus, which served as a camp ground for street people. It got ugly as hell. One kid, sitting on a rooftop watching all the goings-on, was even shotgunned to death by the Berkeley cops."

So you're saying that, in the current case, the federal land in Nevada is like the People's Park in Berkeley was; the rancher grazing his cattle on public property is a freedom-loving superpatriot, like the heroic Berkeley protesters using the public park were; and Gov. Reagan was a big government-loving, state-worshipping bully, like the bullying bureaucrats at the BLM. It is rare to see GOPers characterize Reagan in this manner, but I am forced to agree, if not with the logic of the overall analogy.; 4/16/14, 1:59 PM