You can tell who CNN and the Mexican .gov consider the real threat

by the title: Mexican forces struggle to rein in armed vigilantes battling drug cartel
The cartels are up-to-date on their bribes, so the 'vigilantes' are obviously a bigger threat.

Some vigilante groups have vowed not to hand over their guns until cartel leaders are captured.

"We want them to go rescue the towns where the people are still being massacred by organized crime," said Estanislao Beltran, a spokesman for the self-defense groups. "When there is peace and security in our state, we will give up our weapons."

Residents, meanwhile, told CNNMexico they're caught in the middle of spiraling violence that shows no sign of slowing. And some observers say it's not clear the government crackdown is working.

"Federal authorities, instead of imposing order, instead of rescuing the cities, they are more like referees," Jose Antonio Ortega, president of the Citizens Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice, told CNNMexico this week. "They are watching the civil war in Michoacan."

Mr. Beltran, a suggestion: NEVER give up your arms.

I found this article through this one, which has some interesting thoughts.
The Mexican people have nowhere to turn; and this, in my view, has always been by design. Disarmed and suppressed while government-aided cartels bleed the public dry, it is no wonder that many Mexicans have turned to illegal immigration as a means of escape. The Mexican government, in turn, has always fought for a more porous border with the U.S. exactly because it wants dissenting and dissatisfied citizens to run to the United States instead of staying and fighting back. My personal distaste for illegal immigration has always been predicated on the fact that it allows the criminal oligarchy within Mexico to continue unabated without opposition. Unhappy Mexicans can simply run away from their problems to America and feed off our wide-open welfare system. They are never forced to confront the tyranny within their own country. Under this paradigm, Mexico would never change for the better.
...
The Mexican government has decided to reward the brave people of Michoacan with the threat of military invasion and disarmament.
In some cases, government forces have indeed fired upon militia supporters, killing innocents while exposing the true intentions of the Mexican political structure.
Mainstream media coverage of the situation in the western states of Mexico has been minimal at best; and I find the more I learn about the movement in the region, the more I find a kinship with them. Whether we realize it or not, we are fighting the same fight. We are working toward the same goal of liberty, though we speak different languages and herald from different cultures. Recent government propaganda accusing Michoacan militias of “working with rival cartels” should ring familiar with those of us in the American liberty movement. We are the new “terrorists,” the new bogeymen of the faltering American epoch. We are painted as the villains; and in this, strangely, I find a considerable amount of solace.

If the liberty movement were not effective in its activism, if we did not present a legitimate threat to the criminal establishment, they would simply ignore us rather than seek to vilify us.

This is interesting: rather than try to shut the militias down,

they want to incorporate and arm them.  Makes me wonder if there was a conversation along the lines of "We can't protect them, and if we tell them to surrender their weapons and stop... well, do you relish the headlines from sending the army in to kill some of them and imprison many others?  For trying to protect their homes, families and neighbors?"

I agree with Alien:

The next spending bill from the House should, whatever else it contains, include the federal defunding of the National Park Service, right down to zero dollars and zero cents, the complete abolition of any and all federal park management or supervision, and transfer all federal park properties to the states in which they are located.
If the NSPS is going to screw with people this way, it should expect to pay the price; and at this point, I think getting rid of ALL of them is suitable.


Will Fast And Furious Justice Finally Befall Eric Holder?
Not if Obama and most of the media have anything to say about it.  Not to mention the "He's a Democrat, so he gets a pass" bastards in Congress.


Part-time government employees working for Cook County, Illinois — President Obama’s home county — may soon lose their employer-funded health insurance and instead have to move onto Obamacare’s healthcare exchanges.

That move would once again directly contradict President Obama’s promise that Americans who like their health plans could keep them.


Some of the enviroweenies have faced the reality of the true prices of gasohol; corn industry, lobbyists and Al Gore hardest hit.


Over in (formerly Great)Britain,
More than a dozen Muslim clerics have been caught agreeing to marry off girls as young as 14. 
Four imams are now under investigation, after they offered to arrange the illegal ceremonies. 
Undercover reporters, posing as the mother and brother of a 14-year-old, contacted 56 mosques across the country and asked clerics to perform an Islamic marriage ceremony, known as a nika. 
 Imams at 18 mosques agreed – including one who has advised the police. 
The preacher was prepared to arrange the nika despite being told that the ‘bride’ was being forced to move in with a man against her wishes.
One of the annoying things about this crap: some southern preacher was pushing this, we'd be hearing about the 'evil Xtianists' and so forth; muslims do it, we're not supposed to notice.


And while people aren't paying attention to the IRS,
Senior Internal Revenue Service officials—including one at the heart of the IRS “targeting” scandal—violated agency policies and possibly federal records laws by using private email to send confidential taxpayer information, the GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said in a letter.

In a Sept. 30 letter to IRS Acting Commissioner Daniel Werfel obtained by the Free Beacon, Oversight Chairman Darrel Issa (R., Calif.) said an investigation revealed a “troubling pattern” of at least four top IRS officials using their private email addresses to relay confidential tax information.

“This not only raises the prospect of violations of the Federal Records Act but it also raises data security concerns and violates internal IRS policies,” Issa wrote to Werfel.


Down in Mexico,
“The government didn’t do anything to help us,” said Zarcotellos, who lost her brother and a brother in law to the ruthless violence. “We couldn’t even send kids to school. I knew it would only end when the people armed themselves,” she said.

Outside the market, Alberto Castillo, a 62-year-old resident, explained, “the moment came when it became necessary. There was a lot of insecurity so the people rose up.”

Over the course of this year, the security dynamic in Xaltianguis has evolved dramatically. Twice a day, on early morning and mid-afternoon, several dozen women march together -- weapons at the ready -- through the streets. Their presence alone has proven to be a deterrent to would-be thieves and extortionists.
There's the obligatory crap about 'military-grade weapons bought in the US and smuggled in', otherwise a pretty good piece.

When the .gov won't help you, it gets bad enough,

You do what you have to.
An audacious band of citizen militias battling a brutal drug cartel in the hills of central Mexico is becoming increasingly well-armed and coordinated in an attempt to end years of violence, extortion and humiliation.

What began as a few scattered self-defense groups has spread in recent months to dozens of towns across Michoacan, a volatile state gripped by the cultlike Knights Templar, a drug gang known for taxing locals on everything from cows to tortillas and executing those who do not comply.

They don't trust LE, they don't trust the army, and they have reason not to.  So,
The groups ring a church bell or shoot off fireworks, and thousands pour into the streets, he said.

“It’s curious,” the doctor said. “These people who had tied people up, blindfolded them and executed them, when we shoot, they run. I think they are afraid of us.”
He and others also wonder how they have been able to do what far-better-armed federal security forces have not.

“Just look at the military people — they have gear, they are trained, very capable,” said Pimentel, the butcher. “But here, the locals, the farmers, the workers, we are doing the job. Now we have to be sure those people are not coming back.”
You'll note that it mentions the carrying arms in a country were just about anything is illegal for the commoners; but the army seems to be giving a blind eye.  Knowing who the real enemy is, I'd guess.

What? A reporter gets it wrong on militias?

Whoda thunk it?

I'm going to quote a chunk of the post on the difference between a State Guard and a militia:
These are not — as you might think from reading the article — renegade “militias” organized by anyone who might want to. They are Congressionally authorized military forces, supposed to be there for use within a state if the National Guard is overwhelmed or unavailable because of foreign deployment, etc. Unfortunately, this discussion gets all mangled in the article and the distinction isn’t clear at all. So, here’s a nutshell summary:

We have the armed forces of the United States. Those include the National Guard, which — though occasionally called “the militia” — is really troops under federal control, as made clear in Perpich v. DoD, which held that National Guard units may be sent abroad over the objection of their governor. (Technically, National Guard members are enrolled in both their State’s National Guard, and the National Guard of the United States, but the latter trumps in the event of a dispute).

The State Defense Forces are troops raised by states with the consent of Congress. They’re not militias, either, but they have no dual Federal role, and can’t be “federalized” as the National Guard can.

We also have, again as recognized by both federal and state statutes, an “unorganized militia” of the states, and of the United States. This includes most male adults and — in some states — females, too.

Some folks in what remains of the “militia movement” favor the establishment or expansion of State Defense Forces in their home states. They may want to join them, too. Nonetheless, those Forces aren’t militias, any more than the membership of “militia movement” folks in police forces makes the police a militia.
He also notes that the Southern Poverty LyingLaw Center is at it again, stirring up crap about militias. Back during the weekend Insty pointed to an article I'd forgotten, from 1996, on the subject of SPLC hysteria-stirring on the subject.

Apparently the prosecutors don't care about really pissing off this judge

to wait until five minutes before the deadline to file an appeal. And this really craps on the government's case:
But at two days of bond appeal hearings and in her order, Roberts expressed doubts about the weight of the government's evidence against the members of the militia based in Lenawee County.

She also described the government's motion seeking a stay of her bond order as "woefully inadequate."

It's not known when Roberts will rule on the government's stay request -- filed just minutes before a 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline -- but the soonest anyone will be released is Thursday.
From the AP article:
A federal judge late Wednesday denied a government request for a stay and ordered all nine Hutaree militia defendants released on bond.

"The government simply failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the seriousness of the charges ... is sufficient for the court to conclude that there were no conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the community," U.S. District Judge Victoria A. Roberts said in an order.
THAT'S gotta sting. And it makes this look more like a case of "Make noisy arrests with lots of raids on MILITIA PEOPLE PLANNING ATTACKS!!!, because we can use the publicity and it'll make militias and tea party people look bad."

ARE these people dangerous? WERE they actually planning attacks? Right now, we don't know; what has come out so far is looking more and more like bullshit.

Ok, crap like this is why I didn't jump on the Hutaree bandwagon

and say ANYTHING about it.
DETROIT - An FBI agent who led the investigation of nine Michigan militia members charged with trying to launch war against the federal government couldn't recall many details of the two-year probe yesterday during questioning by defense lawyers.

Even the judge who must decide whether to release the nine until trial was puzzled.

"I share the frustrations of the defense team … that she doesn't know anything," U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said after agent Leslie Larsen confessed she hadn't reviewed her notes recently and couldn't remember specific details of the case.
...
Prosecutors fought to keep Ms. Larsen off the witness stand, saying the defendants had no legal right to question her.

But the judge said the agent's appearance was appropriate because the burden is on defense lawyers to show their clients won't be a threat to the public if released.

The nine lawyers asked specific questions about each defendant. Ms. Larsen said she had not listened entirely to certain recordings made by an undercover agent who infiltrated the group.

She said that because they were still being examined, she didn't know if weapons seized by investigators last month were illegal.

At other times, Ms. Larsen couldn't answer questions because she said she hadn't reviewed investigative reports.

Defense lawyer William Swor asked if the No. 1 defendant, Hutaree leader David Stone, had ever instructed anyone to make a bomb.

"I can't fully answer that question," the agent replied.
My first thought, on reading this bullshit, is "Well, this agent decided she didn't actually want to commit perjury after all. And is trying desperately to talk around the lies." I mean, come on; she 'hadn't listened entirely to'? She 'couldn't remember specifics'?

And I must point out that, assuming you're being honest about it, it doesn't take long to determine if a firearm is legally owned. Is the barrel or overall length below legal minimum? If so, does the NFA database show a permit? Is it automatic or semi? If auto, see 'NFA database for permit'. And so forth. If they've had the stuff for a month and still can't decide, either they haven't actually checked or they're legal and the feds don't want to admit it.

And that crap about "You have no right to question her"? She was part of the investigation, wasn't she? In charge of it, in fact? So why the hell should the defense NOT be allowed to question her?

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ronald Waterstreet played an audiotape of what he said were several militia members talking freely about killing police.

The participants talked over each other, often laughed and made goofy noises and disparaging remarks about law enforcement.

Prosecutors objected to questions about interpreting the secretly recorded conversations, but the judge said they were fair game.

The judge will resume the court hearing today.
Well, hell YES they're fair game, since they're part of the evidence. And if nobody actually said what the EffingBI claims they did...

I borrow Insty's line: Well, they got the headlines they wanted after the arrest, anyway.

These guys may actually be the kind of people you wouldn't want as neighbors, they may actually have done something illegal: but the burden is on the state to PROVE IT, by legal and correct means. If they can't legitimately do that, then either they effed-up the case and blew it, or the case was bullshit.

At this point, how many votes for 'bullshit'?

Finally heard from Rep. Dank on the 'ban the militia' amendment

Basically says 'The amendment was passed and sent to conference as a courtesy to Rep. Shelton; the bill's author objects to some the language- including the mention of militias- and the bill will die in conference if the objected-to language is not removed.'

Yeah, it's good the thing doesn't have the kind of support indicated by the vote; it's really annoying that an amendment like this would be almost unanimously passed just as a 'courtesy'.

Ref the 'unauthorized militia' amendment,

No answer from Rep. Shelton. What really ticks me even more is no answer from my rep., David Dank, either. Which leads me to think either some game is going on they don't want to let us in on, or Dank voted for the damn thing without actually thinking about it and doesn't want to answer for it.

Well, it seems Rep. Shelton just doesn't want to or won't bother to

answer the questions.

This morning I resent to him, summarizing what I knew of this, and asking
"Which brings me to the question: the amendment, from what I can find, states "any independent military organization that is neither recognized nor authorized by the Commander in Chief of the Militia for the State of Oklahoma."; how are you going to deal with the 'neither recognized nor authorized' when the unorganized militia is specifically recognized by state law?"
and waited.

A while later, the response came:
Is there a question
He either didn't read far enough to get to the question, or over looked it. So I resent,
"Sir, the original question is the amendment, from what I can find, states "any independent military organization that is neither recognized nor authorized by the Commander in Chief of the Militia for the State of Oklahoma."; how are you going to deal with the 'neither recognized nor authorized' when the unorganized militia is specifically recognized by state law?

Second question: this news article I found this morning states "Recruiting membership in an unauthorized militia" would be a crime of itself; is the article correct, or is that a misstatement of your amendment? If it's accurate, then a group would not have to be involved in any criminal activity, as your response day before yesterday indicated, in order to be involved in this."
And thus far, no answer at all.

I can't find the text of the amendment on the state website, either it's not there as yet or the damn thing is hiding.

I just love politicians.

I've still received no response from Rep. Shelton

so I just sent another e-mail:

Sir, I've found the text of SB2018; reading it, if your amendment simply said something like "Any group identifying itself as a 'militia' but involved in the above activities is a criminal gang" I wouldn't worry. My problem is the beginning of the news story and the release I found on the House website:
Legislation proposed by state Rep. Mike Shelton would increase the penalty for individuals involved in unauthorized militias or similar domestic-terror groups.

That does not speak of involvement in criminal activities, it simply says 'penalty for being involved in' AND equates militia and 'domestic terror groups; that's a whole different thing. And it does directly compare militias to terror groups. Which brings me to the question: the amendment, from what I can find, states "any independent military organization that is neither recognized nor authorized by the Commander in Chief of the Militia for the State of Oklahoma."; how are you going to deal with the 'neither recognized nor authorized' when the unorganized militia is specifically recognized by state law?

Here's what I found in OK state law:
§44-41. Composition of Militia - Classes.

The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three (3) classes: The National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the Unorganized Militia.

23. "State military forces" means the National Guard of the state, as defined in Title 32, United States Code, the organized naval militia of the state, and any other military force organized under the Constitution and laws of the state to include the unorganized militia (the state defense force when not in a status subjecting them to exclusive jurisdiction under Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code)

So we'll see if he answers me.

I did pass the information along to some other people who've been asking their Reps and Senators about this. When Rep. Shelton insists that if a group is not involved in the criminal activities listed in the Senate bill there's no problem, but his amendment- from what I can find- doesn't actually say that, and directly conflates 'militia' and 'domestic terror group', well, then I think there's a problem. Since I haven't been able to find any text of the full amendment, and Rep. Shelton hasn't provided it, I can only go by what I do have.

Added: FINALLY found this article from this morning on this:
Recruiting membership in an unauthorized militia or the Ku Klux Klan would be a crime if legislation approved Thursday by the House of Representatives becomes law.
Advertisement

"This is making unauthorized militias illegal,” said Rep. Mike Shelton, the amendment’s author.

Both groups were added in an amendment to Senate Bill 2018, which would increase the penalty for aiding or soliciting gang membership from one year in prison to five years in prison. It also would create a new crime for gang-related offenses as a condition of membership, with the penalty being five years in prison.
...
"Involvement in those types of organizations should be treated no differently than participation in an urban gang.”
So, if your group is not 'authorized', joining it,starting it or talking about it to people would make you a criminal as if you were recruiting for the Bloods or Crips. Wonderful.

At this point I have to assume Rep. Shelton

doesn't want to answer my question about the 'unrecognized nor unauthorized' matter; he's had plenty of time.

Which brings up
A: Does he just not want to bother, or
B: Am I touching on something he doesn't want to talk about?

Ref the 'unauthorized militia' amendment, (how to find the bill text modified)

I've been digging around. First off, I e-mailed Rep. Shelton: said that comparing every militia member to fanatics and the KKK was disgusting, and asked the question about 'recognized or authorized militia'. Did get an answer:
This bill has to deal with types of Gangs not comparing the KKK to militia groups.
Well, in the article he did seem to link them(could be my reading), but this didn't answer the question. So I asked it again:
And that does not answer the question that since the unorganized militia is specifically noted in Oklahoma law, how is the "any independent military organization that is neither recognized nor authorized by the Commander in Chief of the Militia for the State of Oklahoma." going to be dealt with?
and got
Would these militia's be taking part in gang like activities??? If not it would not apply.

That was kind of unsatisfactory. So I asked him if he could refer me to the full text of the amendment, no response as yet. I asked because all I could find was the news story; hunting for the bill was a pain. Finally found it here; you have to choose the 'basic search', put in 'sb 2018', then click on 'Introduced' at the top for the text.

The bill basically says "If you aid/abet/push to/help someone join/recruit for a criminal gang it's a felony", for the full wording it's section 856, paragraph D. In F there's a full "This is what makes it a criminal gang" list. So far, so good.

Where I get nervous- a bit- is the wording I asked Shelton about: that 'recognized nor authorized by' part. Overall, looks like the story gave me an impression that the amendment was targeting 'unrecognized or unauthorized' militias as being automatically a criminal gang; appears that's not the case. I'm bothered by that clause; if he's said something like 'a criminal gang that calls itself a militia is still a criminal gang' I'd be less bothered. I'll see what he says to my question. Part of the reason still worried by it? Found this leading the story I found here:
OKLAHOMA CITY (April 21, 2010) — Legislation proposed by state Rep. Mike Shelton would increase the penalty for individuals involved in unauthorized militias or similar domestic-terror groups.
That's a pretty flat statement of a penalty for being involved in a 'unauthorized militia' and states that such is a domestic terrorist group. THAT bothers me a lot.

Proving that we have Evil Party clowns in Oklahoma as well,

A state lawmaker has proposed an amendment to legislation increasing the penalty for people involved in unauthorized militias or domestic-terror groups.

"There has been a great deal of attention given to increasing the penalties for those involved in gang activity, and while I agree that gangs are terrorizing many communities, they are not the only such threat in our state," said state Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City.

"In Oklahoma we have seen the damage done by militia fanatics and the Ku Klux Klan has a long history of violence and domestic terrorism. Involvement in those types of organizations should be treated no differently than participation in an urban gang," he said.
And there you have it: a Democrat says if you call yourself part of the militia you're just like the KKK. And I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you that McVeigh was a 'militia fanatic', etc., "We have to DO SOMETHING!" and so forth.

I did some digging, and found this on the subject of the militia in Oklahoma state law:
§44-41. Composition of Militia - Classes.

The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three (3) classes: The National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the Unorganized Militia.

23. "State military forces" means the National Guard of the state, as defined in Title 32, United States Code, the organized naval militia of the state, and any other military force organized under the Constitution and laws of the state to include the unorganized militia (the state defense force when not in a status subjecting them to exclusive jurisdiction under Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code).
Now, as the unorganized militia is specifically recognized in state law, I wonder how Rep. Shelton plans to manage this:
Shelton's amendments would extend those penalties to other groups, including the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and "any independent military organization that is neither recognized nor authorized by the Commander in Chief of the Militia for the State of Oklahoma."
Since the unorganized militia is specifically recognized in state law, what the HELL is this supposed to do, exactly? It has the feel of something thrown together for the purpose of political advantage, not serious law enforcement. I fear this is so open-ended it could be used to define almost anybody who speaks or acts in a way the Rep. dislikes as a 'unrecognized/unauthorized militia member'.

Clown politicians; they're everywhere.