Saturday, January 9, 2016

"Do You Feel The Burns Yet?"

Here are some facts. Fact one, Although it’s hard to believe from the execution of the operation, this was in the works for at least a month prior to the protest rally that happened on the 2nd of January. Either there was practically criminal ineptitude by those running it (Yes, “criminal” because this could get people they are directing killed), or it was purposely set up for failure by someone on the inside whose only job is to make a situation that gives The Powers That Be an excuse to drop the hammer.


Chiu ChunLing said...

"I think that is a brazen disregard for the wishes of the people who are at middle of the situation, and the Hammond’s cause is their primary raison d’etre for conducting the standoff to begin with, correct?"

No, that's just not correct. The Hammonds have suffered a gross injustice, true. But it just would not be getting this kind of attention if it were entirely or even primarily about them. There is a lot more at stake here than the Hammonds, and they don't get a veto over completely Constitutional protests of the rest of it.

People who want to make this all about the Hammonds and give them an absolute veto over anyone else's right to engage in Constitutionally protected protest are no better than the worst of the false-flag stolen-valor nutbags who try to assert authority over the entire III% movement and call everyone else traitors for not following their's the same damn behavior either way.

If the Feds come in there with ANY kind of force to put an end to this protest, they are violating the Constitution and shooting them is NOT A CRIME!

This is a protest, not a military operation. It is not invalidated by not meeting the standards of preparation and planning deemed essential to an effective military operation by people who are not involved with it. The only relevant question is whether it would be Constitutional for the Feds to remove them, and if your answer is anything other than a resounding "NO!" you have absolutely no business telling anyone else about the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about careful military contingency planning being required for a protest to be legitimate. THE END!

Anonymous said...

Mike V - Grief is the word that comes to mind of how your take on this is making me feel. I have a deep regard for you. I doubt any debating is worthwhile but I hope you will keep your senses open, in case you are in error.

Steve Ramsey said...

Nobody gave the Hammond's veto power over anything. And the locals would still prefer Bundy and the gang gone.

Bundy used the Hammond's. He exploited their plight.

It has to be said, that luring people supposedly for a peaceful protest with the intent of sucking them into an armed takeover when they got there, is pretty low.

If that's what your grand strategy consists of, relying on your own personal charisma and un-thinking herd mentality, you are at best a poor leader and at worst, a petty dictator yourself.

This is truly life and death, and can alter the course of events in a very negative way if done incorrect.

There is absolutely NO ROOM for this kind of deliberate deception in the body of the three. We have to depend on each other for accurate information and none was given here. It us all predicated on the idea that once folks got there, they would simply follow the Judas goat and subsequently be fleeced and slaughtered.

And it pisses me of to no end they Ammon Bundy, and guys like Payne, and Cooper decided for everyone to take an offensive action without anyone outside their collection of fruitbats receiving so much as a five minute consultation. And to top it off, if they decide to trigger a fight, the rest of us are obligated to respond in some way, because while they are non-thinking, deceptive, and have no grasp of the overall strategy outside Ammon Bundy's personal cause.

Anonymous said...

Is there any doubt SOF ARE NOT friends of The Constitution?
The similarities between them and the SS....
"doing as the Master requests."

Noted for the Future

Jim Klein said...

"Offensive action," Steve? I missed that; could you point it out for me?

Until a complainant stands forth and claims harm to himself or his property, there was no initiation of force. That it feels like there was to you may be interesting in another context, but it's irrelevant with regard to the facts of this matter.

Maybe if everyone stopped overthinking it and imposing their personal philosophies and grudges on the whole thing, the resolution would be easier to see. Try going with reality this trip; maybe it'll turn into a habit.

No complainant, no crime. Easy peasy. Trespass MAYBE (not IMO), but y'all set up civil courts to determine property matters.

The Jester said...

Mr Ramsey, timeline below suggests you are off the mark.

11/4 Ammon goes to Burns and meets daily with the Hammonds for weeks, working with them with full support. The fruit of their efforts is found in the various posts on the Bundy Blog starting Nov. 12. starting here-

11/19 US Atty discovers Bundy/Hammond effort, threatens Dwight. He contacts Ammon on 11/20 and Ammon records the news: and adds video:

Vid appears in current events section of the OR 3% website that focuses on the Hammonds

11/24 Ammon releases another video, also on the OR 3% website, calling for action to stand for the Hammonds.

11/27 after receiving 1000's of emails and letters, Sheriff Ward refuses to accept or reply to anyone interested in the Hammond case, and says he sides with Feds.

12/11 Ammon releases Redress of grievance notice. saying "Please understand that we must exhaust all prudent measures before taking a physical stand against the horrific actions that the People of Harney County are enduring (including the Hammond's). If this Notice is ignored, then one more Notice of Demand will be sent, it will list the many petitions that have been ignored and demand that the Hammond's rights be restored. If that final Notice is rejected then People across the Union will have justification to assemble and once again restore individual rights. Please review the Notice, go to the link and add your name to this important document. Thank you, The Bundy Family -

12/11 As strategy to keep Hammond's safe from Fed assault, they issue statement via lawyer.

12/19 Self explanatory update

12/24 The OR 3% announces "I stand with the Hammonds and Harney county" rally to be held on 1/2-

Bundy's daily promote the Rally thru 1/1 on FB.

12/31 Stewart Rhodes writes anti-Bundy opinion piece based on the 12/11 Lawyer's letter-

1/1 Ammon responds making video summarizing timeline and asserting he had been in close contact with the Hammonds the last 24 hours and they fully support him making a stand. See 1:00 - 2:00 mark. Also note 12:00 to 13:00.

Bundy never LURED OR FORCED ANYONE TO DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEIR FREEWILL. He pre-determined to take whoever would join him to go to the Refuge and take a hard stand after the protest was over.

If Ammon's actions triggers a fight no one is obligated to act. Only individual conscience can obligate one in any given moment. Further, there was already a fight, a Bully beat down a good 75 yr old man to a pulp, stole his money, threw him and his eldest in Prison, and intends to steal his property next ending his family's lifestyle for good. And the response suggested was to march and throw pennies at the bully? Is this not close enough to a Waco to trigger some defensive instinct in those capable of standing up to bullies?

If Ammon had naively broadcast his intention to all parties, the Feds would have gotten wind and stopped him before attaining the Refuge and this is the reason he made the spontaneous NON OBLIGATORY request.