Domestic Terrorists Seize Federal Building

no-gun2Media is using the group’s own label “militia” to describe this little show of force. My own oath was to defend against enemies “both foreign and domestic,” which these yahoos now qualify as. I trust that their federal judges will explain in painstaking detail that the purpose of an American militia is to defend our nation and the rule of law, not to override the civilian legal system on whim. With this act, these white boys reclaim a term that has drifted lately into a racial slur: They are thugs.

Per information available at this time, their cause seems baseless. There is an underlying dispute with the Bureau of Land Management I haven’t untangled yet, but the rally cry is to free a couple sloppy deer poachers that burned a hundred acres of forest to cover their crime.

Some interviewed treat the scene as a permanent encampment, a libertarian island. They want to run the mine and chop down the forest without meddlesome “government interference,” ignoring (as libertarians do) the interconnectedness of commerce, the positive roles of government, and the greater social contract Americans live under.

We left behind “might makes right” a long time ago. We’ve handed violence over to the State because we citizens screw it up so often with lynch mobs and revenge killings. This small group of impatient, deluded gunslingers has no moral high ground above the rest of us – especially the peaceful protesters for change that risk so much armed with just their feet and voices.

These quasi-insurgents don’t represent the people at large. They’re the “tip of the spear” only for their own shortsighted, bigoted, selfish aims. They deserve the ridicule and pushback due a gang of schoolyard bullies.

Second Amendment advocates should brace for backlash as well.

This post was read 1806 times.

About author View all posts

jay

Jay is Editor In Chief of The Agonist, veteran and technologist.

15 CommentsLeave a comment

  • It’s interesting that they call themselves a militia. The Supreme Court deliberately ignored this first half of the 2nd Amendment (“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State…”), in order to establish that the 2nd Amendment gave a universal right to all humans to own a firearm. Why poke a finger in the eye of the Supreme Court by reminding everyone that militias were the real reason for the amendment? Maybe they want to establish the right of any group of good old boys to set up a militia, and we can all conveniently forget about the “well-regulated” part and that bit about being necessary for the security of a free State.

    Secondly, why choose a cause that is so unpopular? Most people in Western states think arsonists who set forest fires belong in jail, since forest fires are now a serious problem in all the mountain states.

    Thirdly, why remind everyone of Cliven Bundy, a man who still hasn’t paid his fines in excess of over a million dollars?

    One thing these guys are absolutely counting on is that Barack “Vagina” Obama is going to do nothing about this. He’s too much of a pussy. They may be in for a surprise. Obama has nothing to lose by properly enforcing the law against criminal behavior. The only question, Jay, is whether he will use terms like “thug,” which shows up all the time on right-wing websites as a reference to African-Americans, or whether he will use “terrorist,” which is equally appropriate.

  • I would be fun to hear “separatist insurrection.” Obama has a town hall scheduled on Thursday around gun violence so I’m sure he’ll keep a close eye on this. I don’t know if the locals have requested federal assistance yet.

  • I recall the Establishment’s response to AIM’s stand at Wounded Knee – and AIM had a better moral position than this crowd of yahoos. I suggest we encourage all the ‘sovereign citizens’ to join these guy and when they’re all in one place, let the National Guard roll them up.

  • “Seditious Conspiracy” has a nice ring too. 18 U.S.C. § 2384:

    “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

  • Numerian: Most people in Western states think arsonists who set forest fires belong in jail, since forest fires are now a serious problem in all the mountain states.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Just to be factual; they didn’t “set forest fires”. Until recently that family had rights to that land and annually burnt off invasive vegetation for hay cultivation. This is a common practise.
    This is a very long and complex story and while I don’t condone their present actions; they have some legitimate grievances.

    • I gather the first fire was a controlled burn that got out of hand – so the family says. The government says it was illegal in the first place. The second fire was arson intended to hide a poaching crime where the Hammonds slaughtered a herd of deer, at least according to a family member who testified that he was instructed to help set the fire. He was 13 at the time and now his family says he is estranged from his mother and is mentally retarded. There is also a long history here of family conflict with the BLM and FWS, the interpretation of which also depends on who is presenting the facts.

      You have to sift through some pretty interesting if not bizarre videos to get the Hammond side, and also go through material on breitbart.com and similar sites. What the general public will hear, however, is the federal government side of the story, which says the Hammonds set forest fires. Compared to 10 years ago, forest fires are a “hot topic” and I suspect there won’t be much public sympathy for this family. Who, by the way, seem prepared to show up tomorrow to serve the rest of their sentence and have said they do not support this militia takeover of the wildlife refuge. Of course, that could be yet another element of government coercion, since they were specifically told in their sentencing never to have any contact with the Cliven Bundy group.

      • Yeah, I agree Bundy is not a sympathetic character. I’m not a fanboy of the US government, but there is an interesting turn in the story; questions are being asked why the National Guard was called out for peaceful protests in Furguson, but with white suprematists it’s hands off?
        The U.S., at least from here, appears to be getting increasingly radicalized on all fronts.
        I forgot about the forest fire; it likely was accidental, but I can’t know that for sure.
        With what’s going on in the M.E.; and the U.S. aggression towards Russia, along with its propaganda and misinformation campaign, I find it increasingly difficult to believe anything the U.S. media reports.

        • Ferguson had arson and other imminent danger in an urban setting with National Guard relatively close. These guys are miles from anywhere and the cops themselves are going to cause the next level of escalation.

        • From what I read in several sources, there were two fires. The first was accidental – the ranchers burning brush and the fire got out of control and spread to federal land. That was both careless and illegal – the weather conditions were so dry that a ban was in effect on all outdoor fires – a crime but less severe. The second fire was deliberate – set to destroy evidence that the two ranchers had killed a herd of deer – one crime to conceal another crime. The original sentences were ‘time served’ but the Feds appealed and the Appeals court imposed five years – the mandatory minimum for the crime. The ranchers will go to prison and have stated the ‘militia’ does not represent them in any way.

  • After much thought; these guys are not terrorists! By any definition they are not terrorists!
    The owner of this thread needs to seriously look at that word; terrorist.
    I have major issues with the free use/mis-use of that word.
    Come on! Get a grip and don’t go along with the mainstream bullshit propaganda; I don’t even agree with these guys, but they’re no fucking terrorists!!!!!

  • Wow; situation normal, all fucked up (SNAFU), and no response.
    Do you really think these wack jobs are terrorists?
    Do you (all inclusive) readily go along with the CCM (corporate controlled media)?
    Where is the critical thinking here?
    Possibly I’m in the wrong blog; I’m a radical! Not some liberal/progressive/leftist/libertarian idealog.
    As Fred Hampton said; Pease to you, if your willing to fight for it.

Leave a Reply