Posted on 12/21/2009 10:05:52 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe
On June 21, 2000, a 39-year-old California businessman, Stuart Alexander, shot three government meat inspectors to death. Alexanders sausage plant had just re-opened after losing its federal license in January. The two federal inspectors and state inspector were reportedly there to serve another citation. The bureaucrats said his products didnt conform to health regulations; Alexander said not a single customer had complained about product quality in the 79 years since his great-grandfather started the business.
On June 21, 2000, a California businessman shot three government meat inspectors to death. In the wake of the shooting, friends called Alexander a good, but troubled man who felt he was being persecuted. One, Ellen Luque, commented, [He] got a bad deal from the very beginning. Maybe too much came down on him all of a sudden.
Others, however, spoke of a hothead who hated following rules and whod once been accused of beating up an elderly neighbor for snapping photos of his messy backyard. A widely reprinted report from Knight-Ridder Newspapers opened with a comment about Alexanders anti-government wrath and noted:
acquaintances say he also carried a grudge against fire marshals, police, building inspectors and nosy neighbors anyone he felt was burdening him with unnecessary red tape.
I dont think he was trying to get away with wrongdoing he was just somebody who doesnt have a lot of patience for the government process or regulations, said San Leandro City Councilman Gordon Galvan, who grew up with the man accused of fatally shooting three inspectors Wednesday at his meat plant. He thought the bureaucrats were putting too much burden on the small-business owner.
This shooting eerily echoed one committed by New Hampshireman Carl Drega in 1997. After years of trying to fight city hall in the courts over property rights, Drega finally reached his line in the sand after state troopers stopped him for having rust holes in the bed of his pickup truck. His toll: two troopers, a newspaper editor and a judge he believed was persecuting him.
After the California killings, a newspaperman tracked me down and asked me to comment. What, me? How did a mainstream reporter even know of my existence, and what could I possibly say about a shooting a thousand miles (and a whole world) away? But I didnt have to ask what made him think of me.
America is at that awkward stage.
Its too late to work within the system,
but too early to shoot the bastards.
Since then, Ive heard those words quoted thousands of times. Ive watched people argue about whether it is or isnt time. Whenever some new government abuse makes the news, someone is bound to wisecrack, Is it time yet, Claire? Most alarmingly, I receive occasional glassy-eyed e-mails from strangers assuring me that the instant I issue the order, my Faithful Self-Appointed Lieutenant will remove any nearby oppressors from the face of the earth. (No such orders shall be forthcoming.)
Morally, of course its time to shoot the bastards.
Obviously, I voiced something a lot of people have been thinking about. Four years have passed since I flippantly said its too early. Is it time yet to shoot the bastards? At least it seems time to take keyboard in hand and give a straight answer yes, no, maybe and whatever turns your crank.
Morally, of course its time to shoot the bastards. It has been since long before I wrote those sentences before I learned my ABCs, before anybody reading this was born.
It was time the first day the first court upheld the first blatantly unconstitutional law for the sake of political expediency. It was time the first day the fedgov got the notion to use regulations or executive orders to control We the People, rather than merely the internal workings of agencies. All the abuses since ninja raids, confiscatory taxation, rules too obscure to comprehend, bullying bureaucrats, millions imprisoned for victimless crimes, burgeoning nanny state, ever-increasing centralized control are government gravy. The truth is, morally its been time since at least Lincolns day. And its time now.
It was time the first day the first court upheld the first blatantly unconstitutional law for the sake of political expediency. Its past time, since all those earlier Americans failed to get out the tar, the feathers or the M1 Garands because they were too quiescent, or too persuaded that justice would prevail. Or because like us they valued due process and knew the chaos that disregard for it could bring. Or because like us they feared the personal consequences. Or because like us they werent ever sure whether that moment was the right moment.
Whenever it becomes impossible to get justice or have freedom within the system of course its morally right to fight back. Even Gandhi recognized that, saying:
He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.
Maybe it was even time on the day federal inspectors tried to close down a little, family-owned sausage plant whose product had been safely used by consumers for eight decades. I dont know. Stuart Alexander thought it was.
But is it practical? Sensible? In that sense, no. And no surprise. Its not time to shoot.
And for all the individual injustices or perceptions of injustice that always exist in the world, have things gotten any worse in the last four years?
Too bad theres no Tyran-O-Meter a gauge, like the atomic scientists Doomsday Clock that could provide a measure of just how close we are to reaching some critical mass of tyranny. If there were, it might show that some things have actually improved since 1996. Back then, the abusive IRS seemed to be going strong despite a lot of talk about alternative tax systems. Today, the IRS is on its knees. The agency openly acknowledges that 65 million Americans scoff at filing requirements (though most, of course, still contribute at the office, even if they dont file their 1040s). Bill Bensons research showing that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified has within the last year gotten airings in such public forums as C-SPAN and USA Today. And lo and behold, in 1998 Congress passed a Taxpayers Bill of Rights that wasnt merely a toothless tiger.
In 1996, the 104th Congress regurgitated one law after another designed to bring Americans activities under the microscope (if not the immediate control) of federal bureaucrats. Today, under extreme public pressure, Congress is making serious noises about protecting privacy including undoing some of their own legislation.
A newly aroused public threw monkey wrenches into the FDICs Know Your Customer bank-snoop regulations, invasive home health care questionnaires, SSN-based drivers licenses, unique identifying numbers for everyone visiting a doctor, and drove the USPS back from the worst of its efforts to control private mailbox holders. Things got so hot that when once-all-powerful OSHA tried to extend its authority into the homes of telecommuting workers earlier this year the agency was forced to retreat in a single weekend no hearings, no lengthy debates, just a whimper. (God bless the Internet and several key groups of activists who used it so well.)
As of August, a new law put the burden of proof on government in civil forfeiture cases, protecting the property of many innocent owners.
While Australia and Britain bowed meekly to confiscation of firearms, American citizens stood adamant. Congress dared pass few new anti-gun laws. Even our polite Canadian neighbors too genteel even to rebel against King George III have rebelled against their 1995 universal registration law, making enforcement almost impossible.
In the rowdy West, when the Forest Service refused to re-open a washed-out road to a recreation area, thousands resisted, forming the Jarbridge Shovel Brigade and re-opened the road themselves, to nationwide cheers and support. The fedgov may yet have the last word but this time they knew better than to come in with tanks, helicopters and ski masked faces. Some of these are very, very big things. All are encouraging signs that Americans may yet be able to take back freedom without shooting. In light of that, maybe some would think I should be revisiting the other part of my statement, that its too late to work within the system. Arent all these advances evidence that the system can still work for freedom?
I still dont think so.
On the other hand
Aside from a heightening of public consciousness on privacy issues, there hasnt been a single actual improvement in freedoms circumstances. At best, activists have merely slowed the advance of tyranny. Even at that, the meaning of some apparent triumphs is unclear. The IRSs collapse may be merely a PR ploy to prepare the way for yet another giant federal tax system. Federal revenues (including income tax revenues) havent suffered. On the contrary, according to 1999 Congressional Budget Office figures, During the past five years, federal revenues have increased at an average rate of 8.3 percent a year Consequently, revenues as a percentage of GDP have risen from 18.4 percent in 1994 to 20.5 percent in 1998 and will reach a postwar high of 20.7 percent in 1999
Some of the so-called privacy protection measures Congress is considering would make matters worse for instance, by giving a federal privacy czar regulatory power over private databases.
Some of the so-called privacy protection measures Congress is considering would make matters worse for instance, by giving a federal privacy czar regulatory power over private databases. The number of wiretaps is soaring, cell phones have been mandated into tracking devices, the CIA admits to backing snoop technology firms, and the FBI has announced numerous initiatives to spy upon the innocent and guilty alike.
The public beat back many invasive regulatory proposals but often not until the damage had been done. And regulatory proposals are still coming at us like something from a John Carpenter movie. (As James Bovard writes in his book I Feel Your Pain, during the Clinton administration Federal agencies issued more than 25,000 new regulations criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to snuff advertisements on race cars.)
The drug war still rampages on, having ravaged lives, property rights and the ideal of honest law enforcement beyond repair. Prison populations continue to bloat.
The drug war though increasingly losing its moral sanction still rampages on, having ravaged lives, property rights and the ideal of honest law enforcement beyond repair. Prison populations continue to bloat.
If Congress didnt act against gun-rights, the executive branch did. The FBI has learned (no doubt to its bureaucratic glee) that it can halt all dealer gun sales in America, simply via a computer system glitch as it did for three days earlier this year, during the height of weekend gun shows. Though entitled by law to go on selling when the instant background check database is unreachable, dealers are too terrified of federal enforcers to do so. And the Clinton administration has used federal clout and lawsuits to pressure, if not cripple, the firearms industry.
The courts have already held, in Paladin Presss Hit Man case, that the mere act of selling a book to a stranger can be culpable.
It is now a federal crime with Draconian prison sentences to publish details about destructive devices. Theoretically, the punishments only pertain if you have reason to believe your audience intends to commit a crime. The courts have already held, in Paladin Press Hit Man case, that the mere act of selling a book to a stranger can be culpable. Congress is now considering a bill with virtually identical language forbidding anyone to teach, publish or otherwise convey information about controlled substances.
In 1996, the federal government gobbled up $1.538 trillion of our substance. The OMBs estimate for fiscal year 2000 spending is $1.766 trillion, and for FY 2001, $1.835.
Although federal civilian employment is actually down, the number of federal police has increased by 21 percent.
Although federal civilian employment is actually down (2,799,000 today vs 2,895,275 in 1995 with no figures available for 1996), during the same period, the number of federal police has increased by 21 percent (86,087 to 104,096). Anyone wonder why theyre needed when actual crime nationwide has been dropping?
Is America still at that awkward stage? More than ever. The movement to reduce governments grasp is certainly at a more awkward stage than it was in 1996. Weve fought for liberty some of us for years, some for decades. Nothing great has happened. But neither lately has anything catastrophic just the usual crawl toward total government domination. And the nation is content. Even we have trouble sustaining our sense of urgency. What are we malcontents shouting about? Things arent so bad. Eventually, we begin to feel a sense of unreality, of sensory deprivation from our lack of connection to what our neighbors and the media tell us is the real world. We become uncomfortably numb. On top of that, many of us threw a lot of energy into preparing for The-Y2K-That-Wasnt. Though we all officially dreaded Y2Kaos, the truth is we needed a crisis that would bring matters to a head. When nothing happened a lot of us felt like the girl whos gotten all dressed up for the dance, only to have her date not show.
But now were just exhausted and dispirited. If some Prince Charming showed up and offered to sweep us off to the Freedom Ball in his coach, we might just say, Not tonight, Prince Baby. Im tired.
Unless some unforeseeable trigger event strikes, we may remain at that awkward stage for a long time (maybe decades). Liberty will continue to erode, but not so fast well jump out of the boiling pot. Freedom lovers will continue to shout that theyd rather die on their feet than live on their knees but will go on living on their knees. Congress and regulators will make minor adjustments when angry people make things hot for them, but will always gradually work toward total control. And the few poor saps who take action to halt it will languish in prison or the grave.
In his Sept. 21, 1997 column on Carl Drega, Vin Suprynowicz pegged the whole situation:
The problem [is] that our chemical castration is so gradual that there can NEVER be a majority consensus that this is finally the right time to respond in force. In this death of a thousand cuts were ALWAYS confronted with some harmless old functionary who obviously loves his grandkids, some pleasant young bureaucrat who doubtless loves her cat and bakes cookies for her co-workers and smilingly assures us shes just doing her job as she requests our Social Security number here our thumbprint there the signed permission slip from your kids elementary school principal for possessing a gun within a quarter-mile of the school and a urine sample, please, if youll just follow the matron into the little room
It doesnt take an oracle to know that anyone who starts shooting government agents now is going to hurt himself more than the system. And no Minutemen are going to rush to the aid of Stuart Alexander. No members of the Henry Bowman Brigade, inspired by John Ross novel, Unintended Consequences, are going to take some future Carl Dregas act as a signal to follow suit.
Still, an increasing number of Alexanders and Dregas, standing on their own individual Concord Greens, will decide: No more. And I cant by any means declare that it will never be me, or thee, or my next door neighbor who discovers one day that it is time to shoot, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.
But am I gonna say you should turn meat inspectors into meat? Am I going to suggest you rig a bomb to the engine of your local tax mans car? No way, not me. (If you do, make sure his wife and kiddies arent the next ones to get into the vehicle, though. That isnt playing nice.)
Is is time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if theres a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. Is it time? Morally, yes. Absolutely. If you do it, and if theres a heaven, I hope you get a good seat. But if you pot a bureaucrat figuring itll light some fire under the cold, dead butts of a complacent nation
good luck.
I never said Hamilton was clueless. Far from it. The only one I said was clueless was Madison.
Agree on each and every point. Nice summary.
Thanks
You are welcome. That book was published in 1940. It isn’t the typical articles sucked/Constitution great presentation. It’s the other side of the argument.
Good Read. You will be outraged.
by the time that AS was published, the gulag system and tyranny were in place for how many decades...five? And how many innocents were tortured and murdered in that fifty odd years. Millions! And even more after piblication. I’d say that was a bit late! The intent today is to prevent the disaster that AS wrote about after the fact and to not have millions of Americans suffer the same fate by acting early. AS did great work, but the real efforts to prevent tyranny should have been done decades earlier. Do you recall AS’s qoute about how their hearts burned that they had not acted violently toward the secret police each time they knocked on the door of an apt and behind it weren’t men armed with shovels, axes etc. and that they should have instilled fear in the secret police that each night they went to do the round ups they never knew if they’d live to see their family in the morning. AS was not as passive as your post implies! *this sent from phone, so can’t quote AS exactly. maybe another freeper can help*
thankfully, we are not at soviet tyranny today and such actions are not necessary here. however, in the USSR...scary stuff there and for those souls
BTTT
Nearly every government K-12 teacher absolutely **is** one of the people described above. The rest, like the Marxist, Bill Ayers, or the pedophile sex abusers are truly evil!
Remember this paragraph above the next time you meet a government K-12 teacher who is "just doing her job" and loves her cat.
Actually it was Henry who was clueless.
lol. That’s pretty good.
Randolph and Yates were fairly dim bulbs too.
Stop it. Yer killing me. lol.
Yeah right. Find me a lefty who says the Constitution made too powerful a national government. Find me a lefty that says we were better off as a confederacy. Lefties whine about the founders owning slaves and crap like that. You never hear me getting into any of that.
The Constitution put the philosophy of our Declaration into practice.
No it didn't. The Declaration says the people have a right to alter or abolish their government. The Constitution says they must first get 2/3rds of each house to vote for it, then they need to get 3/4th of the state legislatures. Big difference.
What would be the underlying philosophy of Huck's perfect government?
That government is nothing more than a choice among evils.
It must be awful to be you, unable like any lefty to love his country.
It's fine to be me. I am happy to live in the USA. Hell, I'm happy living in NJ. I don't have to lie to myself to be happy. Life is interesting. It's fascinating. The quest for understanding is quite enjoyable. I don't have to pull the wool over my own eyes. I'm not squeamish.
btrl
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
Claire Wolfe seems to have underground in the last few years — last blog posting from her, I think, was some time back in 2007. It would be interesting to see what she would have to write about what’s going on today — no doubt, it would be something provocative and razor-sharp.
She had been writing for Backwoods Home and now makes her life in the High Desert.
I’m sure I have not earned the right here to tell people what they must or cannot post, but this baiting upsets me. My understanding is each of us has signed on here because they share an ideal. History is not bereft of examples of how ignoring signs of tyrannical abuse facilitated more abuse. Let us please stop arguing amongst ourselves.
Self preservation I think should be the goal here, not fighting amongst ourselves or threatening others. That’s my opinion. If history tells us anything, it’s that actions like these are followed by aggression of its own. We won’t need to go looking for trouble because it will find [us] trouble without anyone’s (other) assistance. Actually, it’s been finding [us] for years but we’ve collectively been ignoring the signs, perhaps because the alternative was too dear. If we follow in suit, the wolf will get hungrier. The choice is ours. We may follow many others when future generations ask us “Why did you not stop it? Why did you let THAT happen?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.