Wretchard of the Belmont Club passed this link recently, which I take for an endorsement of it. If, like me, you hadn't heard of this conflict until last night -- well, there turns out to be a lot behind it that you haven't heard yet.
UPDATE: D29 suggests some further reading inside the comments. Here also is Reason on the absurdly harsh sentences, which the 9th Circuit Court upheld on the grounds that they've seen worse. The Constitutional protection withers because the government has gotten by with worse abuses in the past?
41 comments:
Careful, Grim. There's more than a whiff of false flag here. See Vanderboegh
At the moment, I'm just trying to orient to what I'm observing.
Clearly the media want this to be an Oklahoma City type event -- thus the language about 'militia seizing a Federal Building.' Well, it's a building, and the Feds do own it, but it's not a "Federal Building" in the sense that the OK City one was (or that the Richard B. Russell building in Atlanta is). What they're doing is trespassing and squatting in a ranger station that was already closed and shut down for the winter.
Why are they doing it? Allegedly to get attention to this cause. So one question we might ask is, what is this cause that is supposedly worth the trouble? That's why I posted the link to the reported backstory, from a source I trust (Richard Fernandez, aka "Wretchard," is a solid thinker with more than a decade's reliable writing).
Not sure what it all means yet. I'll be happy to read Vanderboegh, or others, who seem to have a solid grasp of it.
See: http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2016/01/perfect-timing-for-regime-federal.html
The link you provided establishes a long train of abuses. At the same time, the Hammond men have clearly and un-equivocally said that they WILL return to prison and do NOT want Bundy (et al) "helping" them.
Curious.
Sounds like the abuses are real, and the objections are valid, but the tactics are badly formulated.
Well, maybe the abuses are real. Recall that the Bundy Nevada situation had a lot of not-very-true "abuses" leading up to it as well. In fact, Bundy was violating the law. We may disagree with the law, of course, and we may disagree with the Feds' insane pursuit of acquiring every acre of land in parts of the west; but...
See Breitbart's story today.
When one is considering armed resistance, one is well-advised to have a VERY firm factual ground.
Proof that someone is 'violating the law' gets you nowhere with me if 'the law' is actually an administrative decree from the very agency engaged in the abuses. That's just stacking the deck so that the executive is always right, and the citizens the executive serves are always wrong.
It would have been better to leave the guns at home for this protest, though. I'm not at all opposed to armed protests, but I think they should scrupulously follow the law whenever possible. When you're going to violate the law to make a point, you should usually not do so in a way that invites a shootout with law enforcement officers. Even if the bureaucracy is wrong, the cops have families too.
Still, BLM backed off of the Bundy claim before, and they may think they can back them down again. And maybe they can. If they were foreigners instead of Americans, they'd have better odds against this administration -- it's much tougher on its own citizenry resisting Federal authority than it ever is against America's foreign enemies damaging American interests.
I told you this stuff was intentional back when Hussein O was labeled by me and my analysis sources as amoral, but you thought differently at the time, Grim.
There's a difference between "intentional" and "unintentional", one that doesn't usually interest the average masses.
Now people want to argue about who's doing it, but the first issue they should have resolved was one of intent, not one of origin.
When one is considering armed resistance, one is well-advised to have a VERY firm factual ground.
As if that ever mattered.
The target list is generally what's most important.When the Vietcong came to villages helped by American counter intel and counter insurgency medical forces, they only needed the facts to spare the Vietcong informers. Everybody else was going to lose an arm or head.
That is what produces effectiveness, not the factual ground.
Sipsey and company have been warning people, including federal and local police force officers, on the consequences of collaborating with the totalitarian enemy for some time now. But while they may appear to be more paranoid than me on this issue, although that might be a compliment depending on the person's pov, they are still in the peace time era, same as what Grim had when he wanted to avoid civil war by not thinking about civil war or war being waged.
The inability to strike first, may blind them to the actual false flag operations being conducted by the Left, providing them false positives. Or perhaps their care in figuring out real war from the propaganda about conflict, allows them to see clearly what the conflicting stakes in this situation are.
Either way, a civil war II doesn't imply Union vs Southern Rebels once more. What it actually means is 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1, repeated for a thousand factions in America. Because America is divided like that and more even than people realize, Divide and Conquer. Brady vs Leftist alliance vs BLM vs Hammond vs Brady vs NRA vs SlipIrregulars vs BLM.
People probably can't imagine it... but I can.
Even if the bureaucracy is wrong, the cops have families too.
The Irregulars already covered that, at that website. Collaborators are not shielded, those who refuse to Obey the Orders of the Authoritarian and Totalitarian Regime, will not be fired on per ROE, as the irregulars like V, claim.
Whether that's do able or not in a real fire fight, hard to say. But it is the RoE and perhaps the Bundy faction already know of it.
Still, BLM backed off of the Bundy claim before, and they may think they can back them down again.
After shooting up the property using bullets yes. The Bundy faction's tactics and strategies may cast their judgment into doubt, certainly by V and S Irregulars. But on a realistic tactical situation, if I was in their shoes, I wouldn't be depending on the Law to stop BLM, ATF, the FBI, or the other alphabet "civilian security" force of Hussein Obola's.
It never has in the past.
From the bottom of the Reason article:
Addendum: As Ryan Cooper points out on Twitter, federal prosecutors argued that, contrary to Steven Hammond's account, the 2001 fire was aimed at covering up evidence of poaching on federal land. The 9th Circuit noted that a teenaged relative who barely escaped the flames "testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on the ground so as to 'light up the whole country on fire.'"
Hmmm....
Teenagers can be broken with one or two sessions of 24 hour straight interrogation. Similar the ones Reno used against underaged girls and boys, using enhanced interrogation tactics from the Stasi playbook, before the Gitmo guys even had temperature variation.
It's something to keep in mind when hearing about "witness testimonies". That was part of the critical reason why Waco 1's families refused to give up their children.
The poaching theory doesn't strike me as very plausible. For one thing, there would be no better way to draw attention to your poaching in a vast wilderness than by lighting a fire that would lead emergency personnel to respond to that specific area. For another, a grass fire won't burn hot enough to destroy the evidence. You can destroy bones in a kiln, but a grass fire will merely blister the flesh, not consume it.
Of course, it could be that they are idiots. But it's not terribly likely that they are both (a) regular poachers, and (b) people who don't understand those facts. If they've ever done it before, they'll have noticed that it didn't work and it brought attention.
So I suspect that poaching is not the case. Any 'confessions' to the contrary are probably coerced falsehoods.
From the appeal. Sounds like repeated violations to me:
The Hammonds have long ranched private and public
land in Eastern Oregon. Although they lease public land for
grazing, the Hammonds are not permitted to burn it without
prior authorization from the Bureau of Land Management.
Government employees reminded Steven of this restriction in
1999 after he started a fire that escaped onto public land.
But in September 2001, the Hammonds again set a fire on
their property that spread to nearby public land. Although the
Hammonds claimed that the fire was designed to burn off
invasive species on their property, a teenage relative of theirs
testified that Steven had instructed him to drop lit matches on
the ground so as to “light up the whole country on fire.” And
the teenager did just that. The resulting flames, which were
eight to ten feet high, spread quickly and forced the teenager
to shelter in a creek. The fire ultimately consumed 139 acres
of public land and took the acreage out of production for two
growing seasons.
In August 2006, a lightning storm kindled several fires
near where the Hammonds grew their winter feed. Steven
responded by attempting back burns near the boundary of his
land. Although a burn ban was in effect [NOTE- firefighters were fighting several other fires in the area at this time!], Steven did not seek
a waiver. His fires burned about an acre of public land.
The government ultimately prosecuted the Hammonds on
charges related to these and other fires.
I already think the cousin's alleged confession is dubious, so the repetition is not clear. It's plausible that they decided to back-burn on their own property to protect them for wildfires already raging in the area, and a small amount of public land was accidentally burned as a result. I see no reason to doubt that they failed to apply for a permit, or a waiver.
A failure to seek a burn permit is reasonably punishable by a fine. If you think it was reckless to try to protect their property in this way while fire hazards are high, a misdemeanor jail term might not be out of order. Five years in prison for a seventy-plus year old man is outrageous, as the judge rightly recognized in his sentencing.
This is the administration that loves prosecutorial discretion. They could have let the county prosecute this as a violation of a burn ban and failure to seek a permit. They elected to prosecute this using Federal terrorism charges with draconian mandatory sentencing requirements. That's evidence that the general charges that the Federal government are harassing these people are valid. And, also, I agree with the judge that application of these mandatory sentences is plausibly a violation of the 8th Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. How usual would it be to punish violating a burn ban with half a decade in Federal prison?
By the way, if they had left it to Oregon and the local county DA, here's the usual standard for violating a burn ban that gets loose:
"Individuals found to be in violation of these requirements during the burn ban may be held liable for the cost of extinguishment and any property damage resulting from an illegal fire."
So, not even a fine: you just have to pay the costs (which may be substantial, of course).
With acknowledgement that none of us were in the jury box at trial, the finding of guilty of "arson" as defined under the relevant law seems an outreach. Accident does not equal "malicious," as Ken White points out at Popehat (link follows), where he also discusses the propriety of the government's appeal of the reduced sentence.
The manner in which this case was handled the extraordinary federal prosecution for this event, leads one to believe it more likely than not that the agency had an ulterior motive to simple punishment for violation of a local burn ban.
https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/
I actually keyed in on the "malicious" part of the statute - it was what made me look deeper in the first place. Well, that and the tone of the Reason article, which didn't strike me as terribly neutral (same thing that strikes me in reading the NYTimes, just from the other end of the political spectrum) :p
I agree it raised questions, but using the term "accident" (as in, "Oops! This person keeps *accidentally* starting fires that he loses control of") to describe multiple instances where someone has doesn't really fit either. When you're leasing land from someone else, the legal standard is that you have to exercise MORE care (not less) than you would if your actions only affected you. And frankly, that's an entirely reasonable expectation. You can leave your tools out in the rain to rust or be stolen, but if you borrowed or rented those tools then you have a greater duty of care b/c you don't own them.
One "accident" is understandable. Multiple "accidents" start looking like reckless disregard or even criminal negligence. Starting one fire in 1999, then 2001, then a third in 2006 (and the excerpt above also references "other fires" in addition to these three) is a heck of a lot of "oopsie! I did it again"s.
But, as ColoComment already said, we don't have all the evidence.
OK, but "reckless burning" is also an offense under Oregon law. It's a Class A misdemeanor:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/164.335
So, the usual penalty even for the harsher interpretation of the facts would be less than a year in prison. It's quite possible prison time might not even be assigned for a misdemeanor.
If that's what's usual in terms of punishment for this crime, the Federal anti-terrorism law is being applied in a way that is unusual. It's also, I think, plausibly cruel in the case of the senior citizen.
Grim, it's obvious you want this to come out a certain way. But I don't agree that you're making the right comparison.
We have state legislatures and a federal legislature. They have different functions.
This issue involves federal, not state land. You can wish state law were applied, but we're talking about federal land and a federal statute (which you are free to criticize - I agree this law doesn't appear to be terribly well written and wouldn't cry if it were changed). Where I don't agree with you is in your characterization of "unusual" (for that matter, neither did Ken White in the Popehat link, which I finally got a moment to read.
I think we're back to the distinction between legal and morally right, but I also think you are downplaying the seriousness of starting fires out west. Having lived in both Cali and in the high desert several times, I guess I take fire more seriously. Starting fires that spread isn't a minor offense.
Doing so *repeatedly*... well, that just doesn't get a pass from me. I might not sentence a person to 5 years and am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences anyway. But this is serious business and it disturbs me to see people suggesting it's no big deal (or that we should just wink at someone who keeps starting fires that spread off their property in a fire-prone area).
A few quotes from the Ken White piece:
Much ink has been spilled amount United States v. Hammond, the federal criminal prosecution cited by militia members as one of the motivations for taking over a federal facility in Oregon. The increased sentence imposed on the Hammonds has been cited as a sign of government abuse. But the sentencing itself is not remarkable.
... The Court found — rather convincingly, given the precedent — that a five-year sentence for arson does not violate the Eighth Amendment:
This is part of applying the law evenhandedly: precedent.
It's arguable whether the five-year sentence is colloquially cruel and unusual, or whether the law should treat it as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. But there's no serious argument that the sentence is cruel and unusual under existing Eighth Amendment precedent. The Supreme Court and lower courts have upheld far harsher sentences for far less serious conduct. The Eighth Amendment still has vigor when applied to the death penalty and some conditions of imprisonment, but under modern jurisprudence it does not place any significant limit on the length of imprisonment that may be imposed for convictions. That may not be what the law should be, but it's what the law is, and has been for some time.
...and he goes on in the same vein. So this just doesn't stand out to me as something "different" or unusual (or "banal", as White puts it :p). It doesn't fit the template of an unusual abuse, historically or viewed in the context of contemporary jurisprudence.
That strikes me as a huge part of the problem. Here as elsewhere, 'contemporary jurisprudence' has read out of the Constitution significant parts of the restraints on Federal power it was meant to enshrine. What does the Eighth Amendment mean as applied by, inter alia, this ruling from the 9th Circuit Court? Nothing.
Yet the Federal judge who was called upon to sentence these men said it would "shock his conscience" to apply the mandatory minimum sentence of the law the government, in its prosecutorial discretion, chose to put on these ranchers.
...I also think you are downplaying the seriousness of starting fires out west.
That may be. I have not lived out West, though I have visited. I use fire for similar purposes here on my land, however. Georgia is much greener and more lush, of course, and the risk of vast wildfires is thus lower. On the other hand, Georgia is also much more heavily populated, so the risk of a fire getting off your land and onto someone else's is much higher.
All the same, the standards of the law look to be pretty similar here and there. Getting a permit in Georgia is a matter of filing an online form with the State, and then calling the local fire department to let them know you're burning today. The local fire department has an answering machine on the line, so you never actually talk to anyone -- it's all shall-issue, except during periods when there are burning bans (usually in the summer).
This issue involves federal, not state land. You can wish state law were applied, but we're talking about federal land and a federal statute...
That's true and I don't dispute it. I raise the state law merely as a point of comparison for whether the Federal law being applied is unusual in its punitive standards. It seems to me that it's fair to compare it to the state law in that regard. If we find that American courts applying American laws usually treat this as a misdemeanor or less -- and it looks like even the harshest reading of this makes it that under Oregon law -- then the election by the prosecutor to apply this anti-terrorism law with far harsher penalties looks to me to be 'unusual' for the purposes of 'cruel and unusual.'
Otherwise, we could only test Federal law against Federal law, and as your final comment suggests, the Federal law is so routinely draconian that the Eighth ends up meaning effectively nothing in terms of what it prohibits the government from doing -- even if it shocks the consciences of its own judges along the way.
The 8th A prohibition on cruel/unusual punishment is not (and never would have been, I think) independent of the standards of the time - standards that are not written into the Constitution. That's the beauty of that instrument - it leaves people and societies free to change with the times. Many colonial punishments are nowadays considered quite barbaric. And yet they weren't unconstitutional, because compared to the standards of the day, they simply weren't unusually harsh.
I could well be over interpreting, but if White is correct in his summary, this sentence really isn't unusual or unusually harsh. I think that's the reason the C says "cruel AND unusual", not "cruel OR unusual".
Yet the Federal judge who was called upon to sentence these men said it would "shock his conscience" to apply the mandatory minimum sentence of the law the government, in its prosecutorial discretion, chose to put on these ranchers
That really doesn't carry much weight with me - sounds like judicial hyperbole (especially given the abundant precedent!). This guy's conscience must be shocked on a daily (perhaps even hourly) basis :)
FWIW, I"m not necessarily in favor of throwing the book at these guys (I'd want to see the facts that convinced the jury). I'm also not sure 5 years isn't appropriate for being (IMO) pretty much criminally negligent on a repeated basis over many years.
The thing is, the jury decided the way they decided (and were very likely aware that there was a mandatory minimum sentence). The Reason account struck me as biased - I would really like to read more about this before making up my mind, and am not particularly inclined to second guess the jury or to view this as unusually heartless to the level that it shocks my conscience.
I just don't know enough of the history to judge, but from what I see there seems to be a pattern of behavior that is reckless at best.
From the appeal
The appeal from... Hussein Obola's hench woman... or maybe it is another appeal people are referring.
The people sitting on the fence naturally think they are the most neutral and thus rational/objective audience out there, as they look down on both sides. But I never promised that 100 WACOs would wake up every single individual in America, just the nation itself as an entity. Some individuals will indeed surpass the 100 WACO limit I set myself more than 5 years ago.
Grim, it's obvious you want this to come out a certain way. But I don't agree that you're making the right comparison.
Of course Grim isn't making the right comparison, he is and has been downplaying the seriousness, the vindictiveness, the absolute verifiable evil of the processes and entities involved. Back when Grim and Cassandra were talking about similar subjects in 2007 - 2010, Grim preferred to defer to Cassandra's judgment on there being "no intention whatsoever of malice fore, during, or after thought". That has not changed for Cassandra's civic religion in the Rule of Law and belief in moderation or the middle ground. But for whatever reason, Grim has begun drifting to one or the other side now.
He is still, of course, underplaying the underlying dynamics, but it is better than his thought processes back in 2008 at least. He is still being "cautious", as I perceive it. But this very caution seen by those in the middle high ground fence, to be an irretrievable side taking.
For those of us on the extremes of this spectrum in the war, Grim's much closer to Cassandra's point of view than he is to any of the Involved factions in the US right now. It takes time to mobilize an army, as it did in the Revolutionary War. Time for Southern tribal aristocrat slave owning propaganda to make their case to the new generation why dying for the slave lords is righteous and just, that it is the only way to protect their way of life. Time for the freed Southern families from Leftist totalitarian doctrine, to rejustify their own current actions to a different vision. Time. It's not something people can buy or get back, once they fall off that fence.
Back when Grim and Cassandra were talking about similar subjects in 2007 - 2010, Grim preferred to defer to Cassandra's judgment on there being "no intention whatsoever of malice fore, during, or after thought". That has not changed for Cassandra's civic religion in the Rule of Law and belief in moderation or the middle ground. But for whatever reason, Grim has begun drifting to one or the other side now.
Ymar, there is some truth to this observation, but I believe it to be oversimplified and thus, incomplete.
I cannot speak for Grim, but I understand the direction of his arguments to be much the same as it has always been: that a free society demands constant vigilance from each of us, and that ultimately our rights are very much a function of our own willingness to stand up and fight for them.
My characterization is - as so often happens when people who don't see things the same way attempt to sum up a viewpoint different from their own - no doubt oversimplified and incomplete :p
The thing is, I agree with what I see to be Grim's main point 100%!
I think my own position differs from his in 3 major respects:
1. Where cutoff threshold lies before taking up arms and overthrowing government. He sees many modern-day threats to our freedoms as far more dangerous (and more historically unprecedented) than I do. My own view is that threats to freedom, historically, ebb and flow. I think Grim sees us as closer to crossing the proverbial Rubicon than I do. I look at history - the same history Grim so often points to as better than today - and see far, far *worse* threats to freedom than many of the ones that so alarm him (and sometimes, me!) today. Viewed in that context, I deem today's threats... well, still threatening! But by comparison, not quite as threatening as he does.
Often my position is unfairly characterized as "No action required" - and that IS unfair. It's closer to, "Hey, I'm concerned too - by all means speak out, fight, argue... but I'm not quite ready to march on Washington loaded up with guns and ammo yet."
[to be continued]
2. Whether the past was "better" than today (and whether returning to the past is possible/desirable/the "answer". Grim, being an historian, often points to the past as a sort of "way out". Tex and I often point out that women were considerably less free in the past, so returning to an age where we had fewer legal rights and less freedom doesn't seem like a good solution to the contemporary problem of "diminishing freedom" :p And I'm not convinced that 1/2 of the human race needs to take this one for the team in the name of "freedom".
I think both men and women need to learn to handle our new freedom responsibly, and there's no doubt in my mind that that freedom has not be cost-free.
3. The cause of our present troubles. I see Grim as suggesting repeatedly that the problem is "the system". I see the problem as being "human nature" (i.e., we carry our own bag of evils with us). This is a crucial divide - and I'm very aware that I'm oversimplifying Grim's arguments - because if you're designing a remedy, it really helps to understand the *cause* of the problem you're trying to solve.
I view the rule of law as a very imperfect solution to the problems inherent in human nature. We have laws because people do really bad things to each other in the absence of law. They also do really bad things to each other in the presence of law (sometimes, with the law's help!) but I believe the historically unparalleled prosperity, security, and freedom of Western civilization make a compelling case for the efficacy of our current system.
Yes, even with all its many imperfections! It's a palliative for human nature, not a cure for it.
And my assessment of what would happen if we violently overthrew the government is 180 out from Grim's - precisely because I view unrestrained human nature as the root cause of many of the ills he rightly decries. This battle to find the right balance between law and license will never be over, and I believe there's no single "right" balance (it will shift somewhat with the times and circumstances).
To sum up, I believe Grim and I agree on much of the substance and disagree on the weight to be given to various elements of it.
Your responses to Ymar, Cassandra, are remarkably insightful. I'm almost tempted to let them stand without comment, but I think it might be more helpful if I make just a few clarifying remarks.
Ymar, in 2008 a filibuster-proof majority was voted to a radical new President about whom almost nothing was known except that he spent a lot of time with radical anti-American figures, to include terrorists like Dorne and Communists like "Frank." He had no real experience, but he had the sweeping trust of a very large voting majority. Sometimes, people have to make mistakes and live with the consequences for a while before it's possible to get them to change their minds. Here and elsewhere, America has made some bad mistakes in the last few years, but the moment at which you can fix them is only after they've had a chance to see the consequences firsthand.
As for taking time to explain what is worth fighting for and why, I've done plenty of that here since 2003. If I were shot dead tomorrow, the arguments are all there for anyone to pick up and wield.
Cassandra,
You're right that you and I agree about more than is obvious. One of them is that we actually do agree that human nature is the basic problem. (Aristotle also makes this point.) What we disagree about is whether human nature as expressed in individuals or in government agents is most in need of controlling.
This is not an either-or proposition. Of course governments and also individuals need to be guided by a good constitution and just laws. Still, many of our disputes come down to whether governments' setting aside of traditional restraints on its power is to be accepted given some good it claims to be pursuing.
Human nature was at the heart of the Bill of Rights. It is structured as a list of restraints on state power that are about what liberties an individual would need to flourish as a human being. A system that begins to infringe upon them is dangerous just because of human nature, the human nature of government officials unrestrained in their power -- and it is not merely the Eighth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment that has been reduced in force by recent government actions, including jurisprudence. It is also the Fourth. It is also the Fifth. It is also the First, especially in terms of the free exercise of religious liberty.
It's worth looking to the past for the same reason it's worth looking at state laws in judging whether Federal ones are reasonable: you need a point of comparison. The Founders weren't perfect in execution, but they gave a principled series of arguments for human liberty as a counterweight to government authority that is rooted in human nature. As the government slips one and another and yet another of its restraints, power becomes concentrated and -- given human nature -- abuses more likely.
It is the work of a good citizen to be ever-vigilant, and to fight such abuses wherever they occur. This doesn't mean revolution every time, and in fact it makes revolution less likely if successful. Nevertheless, the government should always face intense opposition whenever it proposes an innovation that expands its power. So I believe.
Unsurprisingly, I agree with most of what you just said :)
I think one of the biggest problems we face these days is abstraction. Our generation faces few clear, existential threats. Our present system has done a remarkably good job of dealing with those (though the recent story in Cologne along with the mobs, Occupy nonsense, and violent disturbances we've seen recently are warning shots across our bow that may be just what we need to remind us that - our unparalleled security/prosperity nothwithstanding - the essential nature of the world hasn't changed.
We're arguing over how to fine-tune the Western experiment, but there's also a faction that doesn't understand that the life we enjoy is a product of that experiment and could vanish if we become so obsessed with perfecting "the system" that we destroy its underpinnings.
Ymar thinks they're malicious. I think they're just stupid/ignorant/naïve. But in the end, it doesn't matter. They must be opposed if we don't want to end up being overrun by savages, both domestic and foreign.
I cannot speak for Grim, but I understand the direction of his arguments to be much the same as it has always been: that a free society demands constant vigilance from each of us, and that ultimately our rights are very much a function of our own willingness to stand up and fight for them.
On principle, that has not changed for Grim given my observation over the years. He was like that in Iraq and probably before then. However, there is a difference in talking about driving over people in the abstract (self defense of family against roaming Critical mobs biking around), and actually realizing that this is becoming a do or die decision, now, in the physical reality, with physically real enemies. So long as he thought they were just figments of Ymar's "world" and "paradigm", stuff that didn't exist, he didn't have to drift over to any spot. Talk about the ideal decision to make, the virtues, but not worry about time limits and other issues on a deadline project.
He could just talk about it in the abstract, like Aristotle. It's not like Aristotle's going to come back to life and duel him to death if he gets it wrong. Things are different though. Very different. To me, it's the same, but to others, it is not. They woke up. Perhaps too late, perhaps too soon. Maybe just partially woke up. Sleep walking around, not everything at 100% yet.
"Hey, I'm concerned too - by all means speak out, fight, argue... but I'm not quite ready to march on Washington loaded up with guns and ammo yet."
The thing is, a lot of people can support a war, without taking up arms. Christians and abolitionists in the Underground Railroad, for example. They weren't out to kill people or even use firearms. But they were still part of the war effort, the psych ops, the propaganda war, the grassroots. Intel gathering too. Heck, even in Iraq, more than half the people were at the American malls shopping for ice cream, vanilla vs chocolate. Later on, the FOBs even had that stuff in Iraq. What an individual thinks is eminent and necessary, has little to do with what the "strategy" needs to be for a war to be won, the logistics. And that is still different from those who think "war is not the answer". If war isn't the answer... what is the answer.
Here and elsewhere, America has made some bad mistakes in the last few years, but the moment at which you can fix them is only after they've had a chance to see the consequences firsthand.
Slight clarification. When I talk about people waking up, I don't think of Hussein's election. In fact, I'm talking before he even became a candidate, that was when I figured out what the Left was doing. Because of Iraq. Iraq was the unveil, the prestige, or the trick in the magician's bag of tricks. The solution, to the illusion. It was the hint at what they were really doing. Everything else, was just more stuff to support the overlying theory and cause. Regardless of what America did in 2007, when Bush II was still president, I came to the conclusion that Civil War II was already inevitable. In 50 years. Hussein Obola just cuts it down to less than 25 years. That is all. That's it. He just speeds it up. The Left's power was already constructed and harnessed, logistically. It was already implanted, ready to go boom.
It's not an election thing. The Palin episode and incidents, just helped solidify my conclusions. If people believe Hussein Obola is evil and intent on malice fore thought... that is good, but wasn't necessary for me. I was already beyond that. So what if America had not made the mistake? It wouldn't have changed fate, at all. Palin or McCain or whomever was in power, would just slow it down, be sacrificed for the Left's glory, and whatever happens is whatever happens. Fate would not change.
Grim's position would symbolize George Washington to me. Focused on outwards threats against freedom... totally ignoring people like me who said that Benedict Arnold is a traitor and needs to be terminated first. So that would be like saying, we got to fix the election process after we win this battle now. And I'm saying, "there won't be an election, British or no British, if you don't get rid of this traitor first". And Washington replies, "there's no way Arnold, the brave and honorable, is a traitor, I won't believe it.".
Washington was protected by Divine Providence or Fate. America will no longer be thus protected.
Arnold would be half of America. By about now. Could Washington have signed the execution orders of half his people, his army?
No.
That's why. America will be lucky to have half her remaining population as viable after the Leftist alliance and their Islamic Jihad allies, are done waging war against humanity, conquering the nation.
It's the difference between people thinking it's some distant threat vs an eminent threat. "If we wait for the threat to become eminent, it would be too late vs WMDs". It's already too late, of course.
Well, half of America was opposed to Washington, too. He won anyway, in part because he didn't try to wage war against half the population. If you go trying to 'stack cordwood,' as you occasionally say, you'll lose.
Whether America is or is not protected by Divine Providence is thankfully not a human decision. I am aware of the danger of offense to God that we as a nation have often given. Even so, I have great faith in a forgiving and merciful God. It is not a bad idea to ask for such mercy, of course: a better idea than not asking, because you can't believe that God could forgive such a people as this. He's tried to tell you all along that is not the case.
It was more like 30-30-30 and then the 3%.
Rebels, neutrals, Loyalists, and then the special ones.
The rest were exiled to Canada, the losers that is. If you don't want to see the cordwood, you got a few choices. You have to stop losing. And you have to get the losers to be exiled. Until both are done, somebody is going to pile the cord wood up, somewhere. It just depends on how high it gets.
When the US Constitution fragments and is destroyed, not even the rebels will agree to fight as one against the foreigners. At least, not for long. As others have mentioned, if they can no longer trust in the Top Authority of the US, then there's no reason for them to Obey such commands. But it also means they don't need to trust their fellows, either. Part of the American trust in each other, due to the guns and politeness thing, was because everyone knew that everyone else was in the same culture, following the same rules, using the same language. When fragmentation and factionalism happens, such as if the South won secession, it will be more than 2 factions fighting.
Somebody is going to end up losing. They'll be martyrs like the 40 at that Roman outpost. I think it was 40 at least.
And Washington won because Benedict Arnold failed to give West Point to the English. He wasn't captured, but his plan didn't necessarily work either.
That is a mark of Divine Providence, plus a bunch of other things like Washington escaping that island on a boat while freezing.
The general could count on British war fatigue and lack of money, to help the war effort. Islam and the Left doesn't have war fatigue, because they revolve around death cults and religious holy wars. The Left will probably import in a bunch of Islamic mercenaries, like the Brits first did with the Hessians I believe they were called. Even so, the Loyalist faction in the US has access to a lot of civilian security and their DHS munitions, stockpiled over the decades for "something", that far exceeds that a foreign empire like the fragmented Islamic Ummah or the war fatigued Brits, could deploy.
I conclude, thus, that the armies will not stop arming, so internal domestic matters will play a more critical point in the second civil war than in the revolutionary war. Much closer to the Civil War I, when Lincoln had to fight off Democrat traitor generals to get re-elected.
The thing is, a lot of people can support a war, without taking up arms. Christians and abolitionists in the Underground Railroad, for example. They weren't out to kill people or even use firearms. But they were still part of the war effort, the psych ops, the propaganda war, the grassroots. Intel gathering too. Heck, even in Iraq, more than half the people were at the American malls shopping for ice cream, vanilla vs chocolate. Later on, the FOBs even had that stuff in Iraq. What an individual thinks is eminent and necessary, has little to do with what the "strategy" needs to be for a war to be won, the logistics. And that is still different from those who think "war is not the answer". If war isn't the answer... what is the answer.
Well, that's certainly why I was writing back then - to support the war effort from a civilian perspective (my husband was in the military but I'm a civilian and always have been). And to try and counter the media's 24/7 campaign against the war effort.
So I agree with you there, Ymar.
Cassandra, and that means the enemy will attempt to target you, because you are part of the logistics or the morale or the center of gravity, even if you aren't officially part of the army fighting the enemy.
That perspective, applies to the Leftist alliance as well in the US. They won't leave you alone merely because you think you're exercising American rights. Rights don't exist to livestock, under the Leftist alliance of utopian evil or Islamic Jihad for that matter, the allies of the Left.
For most Americans, beyond the super majority, going to war has been a choice. Like which college to pick, in some instances. But a Total War of survival, isn't about a choice.
I know I'm incredibly late to this, but I have a question regarding the use of 18 USC 844(f)(1) in this case. "Maliciously damages" indicates criminal intent. The prosecutor claimed that this was an attempt to cover up poaching (or at least the incident in 2001 was), because without that motivation, the "criminal intent" is impossible to prove. In the 2006 case, it appears all sides agree that the intent of the unauthorized burn was to protect his property from a wildfire on federal land. Therefore, 18 USC 844(f)(1) should not apply in the 2006 case at all. As for the poaching theory, I would question what evidence was given to substantiate that claim. As Grim points out, any such fire would not conceal evidence of poaching, merely bring attention to any evidence (the Streisand Effect). So did they uncover such evidence in the aftermath of the fire? Or did they cite the lack of poaching evidence as proof of the claim? Does anyone here know?
There's a local news outlet that covered the case, but it doesn't answer the questions you're asking. It does make it sound like the conviction was even more dodgy than it appeared, since apparently the 'back burn' fire actually did run into the ongoing fires, so it's really unclear whether "their" fire or the lightning-started fire burned the one acre of government land that got burned.
Here's a more recent article from the same outlet that mentions the 2001 fire. "Badden, speaking for the U.S. Attorney’s office, agreed that a BLM range conservationist testified under oath that the BLM rangeland improved after the 2001 fire, but added that prosecution-submitted imagery showed the land had not returned to its original condition. She does not know of any BLM fire being intentionally and maliciously ignited with the criminal motive of burning and damaging private property."
As entertaining as it no doubt is to second guess (on the basis of reading a few articles) the jury who listened to evidence from both sides before convicting the Hammonds of arson, you're going to have to forgive me if I am more inclined to believe the government didn't brainwash the jury and it's not all some evil conspiracy :p
To answer Mike's question, if you read the pleadings and the rulings in this case, lots of questions are answered. There was eyewitness testimony from more than one person (that the jury must have found credible) to the poaching.
I'm not interested in proving the Hammonds innocent (or guilty, for that matter). That's not my job, and I don't have tools to do a good job even if it *were* my job.
To me, one of the most disturbing things about the Internet, Facebook, Twitter, etc. is that it promotes a "mile wide, 1/4 inch deep" view of the world in which the information most of us read has already been heavily filtered by the time we see it.
That promotes an intellectual hubris (I've read an article or three, and have consequently decided the jury and several judges were wrong without bothering to go any deeper) that is quite alarming. Perhaps this phenomenon is a big part of why people no longer trust institutions - they are continually invited to second guess/critique them, often based on a staggeringly incomplete (and biased!) set of facts.
I have no idea whether these folks were guilty or not. Nor do I have a rational basis for concluding that the jury screwed up. What common sense suggests to me, though, is that repeatedly setting fires that spread across one's own property line isn't "accident", much less some laudable activity we must defend in the name of liberty.
And I say all of this as one whose first thought on reading the statute was, "hmmmm.... how did they prove the 'malice' aspect"?
So I did not start from a position of blindly believing the government. But I also did not start with any feeling that I needed to find evidence that supports the Hammonds' position, either.
Post a Comment