In April 2014, hundreds of armed protesters gathered at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada to take a stand against the federal government.
The post Four Years Ago, Hundreds of Armed Protesters Stood Up to Tyrannical US Gov’t Overreach—And Won appeared first on The Free Thought Project.
The U.S. government plans to spew occupying forces far and wide within the United States.
Or… The U.S. government will distribute the income of the bureaucratic class across distressed regions of the country.
Are they spreading the wealth, or spreading the swamp?
The government’s definition of decentralizing is certainly not the same as ours. They think moving government agencies’ central offices out of DC is decentralizing the government. It’s like an Amelia Bedelia book. Well, the people said they wanted decentralized government!
But generally, when people advocate decentralizing government, they mean the power structure, not the physical presence of government agents.
But still, it is not so clear whether moving agencies out of DC would be a good thing or a bad thing.
The Good
DC is an echo chamber. It is an insular club where people never see the American people they supposedly work for, represent, and serve.
While only 15% of the federal workforce is in Washington, it is where most of the top decision makers live and work. David Fontana, a professor at George Washington University Law School who is writing a book about decentralizing the federal government, says their bubble is growing evermore insulated from reality.
Embedding government agencies throughout the country could make top bureaucrats more empathetic towards the average American when they see how their decisions hurt them.
Citizens’ concerns might actually be heard when government officials are their neighbors. Instead of a tally on a spreadsheet, officials would hear it from a friend.
Increasing physical distance between bureaucrats, lawmakers, and other agencies could cut down on corruption, behind the scenes string-pulling, and closed-door collusion to harm the American people.
DC suburbs include the five richest counties in the entire United States. The lowest median household income among these counties is $108,706 per year! That is almost twice the median household income of the United States at large. Altogether, 9 of the 20 highest income counties in the USA are suburbs of DC.
Instead of that money remaining in the DC area, some of it would be spread out across the country. Original tax dollars paid out as salaries to government employees would be spent in a local small town establishments instead of in DC.
The Bad
When the Chinese invaded Tibet, they sought to destroy their culture by importing Chinese businesses, citizens, and government agents. Of course, they claimed to be improving the economies of impoverished Tibetan regions. And technically, they have made Tibet wealthier by injecting billions of dollars into the region.
DC could end up exporting its culture across the United States. Greed, corruption, crony-deals, and power hungry ideals would come with the money. Local officials would become like crime bosses, trading favors for federal cash.
The Stanford economist representing Silicon Valley in Congress sees opportunity to strategically seed regions of the country with pieces of the federal bureaucracy that can benefit them — and that they can benefit.
In Tibet, the less educated locals end up doing menial jobs, while the best gigs go to imported Chinese nationals. Will the people living near the new government offices become a servant class? It would be the ultimate reversal of what the government is intended to do: serve the people.
One of the most oppressive government agencies is the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM controls 260 million acres of land, 90% of which is west of the Mississippi. That’s why some lawmakers are calling for the central office to be relocated.
But that is essentially inviting the fox into the henhouse. The BLM has confiscated land, stolen cattle, and issued excessive fines to hikers and property owners. They took 90,000 acres of land along a river in Texas, and refuse to even talk to property owners.
This could escalate and increase occurrences of standoffs like the one on the Bundy Ranch. The agencies would essentially become an occupying force.
The Ugly
Would the American people come to see up close how terrible their government really is? Or would they become more sympathetic–or even corrupt–by the presence of government agents in their communities?
“Decentralizing” the government offices could make the U.S. divide into factions based on what agency is embedded in particular areas. It is already bad enough having Congressmen fight over federal funds. Things could get messy if they advocate for a particular agency which most their constituents belong to. Then you might have the BLM battling with the National Parks Service.
“There is all this unused office space outside of Detroit where the FBI could build for not much money,” said Paul Kupiec, a scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. That city, unlike suburban Washington, desperately needs the economic surge such an agency would bring, he said. “Why are we spending billions of dollars on these headquarters in Washington?”
Will the FBI, then, run Michigan? They would have some pretty intense pull in the local scene. And perhaps any Congressmen who don’t want to help out Michigan lawmakers might end up… under investigation.
What Would Really Help…
Maybe it isn’t the government agencies which need to stay away from DC, but the politicians. In the internet age, why do they need to spend tax dollars flying to DC, and staying in swanky accommodations, eating expensive food?
All the members of Congress can simply video call in for their votes. They can talk to other politicians via government technology that records their meetings. That way, there is a record of their communications. That means fewer backroom deals and more pressure from constituents. No more hiding in DC!
We can dream.
What do you think? Would distributing the government offices across America breed harmony or resentment? Would government officials become empathetic towards their fellow Americans, or simply abuse them from a closer range? Would the people in surrounding areas be enriched by tax-funded salaries, or sink into the swamp?
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy is officially set to go on trial this week for his role in leading a 2014 armed standoff against federal agents that became a rallying point for militia groups challenging U.S. government authority in the American West. As Reuters notes, jury selection is slated to start later this morning in a U.S. District Court in Las Vegas after being postponed due to the mass shooting on October 1st that claimed 58 lives.
Jury selection in the latest trial was slated to begin on Monday morning in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas. The proceedings were postponed for three weeks after an unrelated mass shooting in Las Vegas on Oct. 1 in which 58 people were killed.
Standing trial with Cliven Bundy, 71, are the two sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, who led last year’s Oregon occupation, and a third co-defendant, Ryan Payne, a Montana resident linked by prosecutors to a militia group called Operation Mutual Aid.
A fourth co-defendant, internet blogger and radio host Peter Santilli, pleaded guilty on Oct. 6 to conspiracy and faces a possible six-year prison term.
Six lesser-known participants in the Nevada ranch showdown went on trial as a group earlier this year with two men found guilty. One of the two men was sentenced to 68 years in prison and the other is still awaiting sentencing. Two of the four remaining defendants were retried and acquitted, and two others pleaded guilty last week to obstructing a court order. Those two each face up to a year in prison when sentenced.
As you may recall, Bundy"s Nevada revolt was sparked by a court-ordered roundup of his cattle by government agents over his refusal to pay fees required to graze the herd on federal land. Hundreds of supporters, many heavily armed, rallied to Bundy’s cause demanding that his livestock be returned. Outnumbered law enforcement officers ultimately retreated rather than risk bloodshed. No shots were ever fired.
The face-off marked a flashpoint in long-simmering tensions over federal control of public lands in the West and was a precursor to Bundy’s two sons leading an armed six-week occupation of a federal wildlife center in Oregon two years later, in 2016 (see: "Now Is The Time To Stand Up": Armed Activists, Militiamen Seize Federal Wildlife Refuge Office In Oregon). Here"s a recap of the events leading up the Oregon standoff:
On Saturday, militants seized a remote government outpost following a protest by hundreds of angry citizens.
It all started back in 2001 when Dwight Hammond and his son Steven set fire to leased government land in what they said was an effort to beat back invasive plant species and - ironically - prevent wildfires. They set more fires in 2006 and were later convicted of arson.
Both men served time in prison but a judge eventually determined that their sentences were too light and ordered them back to jail.
"After the peaceful rally was completed today, a group of outside militants drove to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they seized and occupied the refuge headquarters. A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said, in a statement. The elder Bundy weighed in as well, noting that the occuption isn"t “exactly what [he] thought should happen." "But I didn’t know what to do,” he added. “You know, if the Hammonds wouldn’t stand, if the sheriff didn’t stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn’t in on that.”
Ammon and Ryan Bundy, along with five other people, were previously charged with criminal conspiracy in the takeover of the Wildlife Refuge though that trial ended with the acquittal last year of all seven.
A grand jury in Portland, Oregon has charged FBI Agent W Joseph Astarita with three counts of making false statements, alleging that he lied when he claimed he did not fire his weapon during the attempted arrest of LaVoy Finicum, a key figure in the Oregon militia standoff at the Malheur national wildlife refuge in 2016.
Astarita, who pleaded not guilty in federal court in Portland, was assigned to arrest the leaders of the Oregon standoff in January 2016 when Finicum drove off the road and into a snowbank, before attempting to flee on foot. During the ensuing confrontation, some of which was captured on film, Oregon state police officers shot and killed Finicum, an Arizona rancher, who police say was reaching for his gun. Police later said the shooting was “justified”.
Here is the press release from the United States Attorney"s Office:
The indictment alleges that Astarita knowingly and willfully made false statements to FBI Supervisory Special Agents, knowing that the statements were false and material to the FBI’s decision not to investigate the propriety of an agent-involved shooting. Specifically, Astarita falsely stated he had not fired his weapon during the attempted arrest of Mr. Finicum when he knew he had in fact fired his weapon. Astarita also knowingly engaged in misleading conduct toward Oregon State Police officers by failing to disclose that he had fired two rounds during the attempted arrest.
Astarita was arraigned on June 28, 2017, in Portland. He entered pleas of not guilty to each county and was released pending future appearances.
An indictment is only an accusation of a crime, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
For those who missed it, a portion of Finicum"s confrontation with police was caught on film and clearly shows that the first shots were fired while his hands were up in the air..."ironically", no pop stars made a "Hands Up, Don"t Shoot" video after this incident.
Last year, we covered the background on the incidents leading up to the Oregon standoff in a post entitled "Now Is The Time To Stand Up": Armed Activists, Militiamen Seize Federal Wildlife Refuge Office In Oregon. It all started when Oregon resident Dwight Hammond set fires on land he leased from the government, an effort he said was intended to fight back the intrusion of invasive plant species and prevent wildfires. Apparently the government did agree and threw Hammond in jail for arson.
On Saturday, militants seized a remote government outpost following a protest by hundreds of angry citizens.
It all started back in 2001 when Dwight Hammond and his son Steven set fire to leased government land in what they said was an effort to beat back invasive plant species and - ironically - prevent wildfires. They set more fires in 2006 and were later convicted of arson.
Both men served time in prison but a judge eventually determined that their sentences were too light and ordered them back to jail.
Some folks were displeased with the ruling and staged a protest that saw some 300 people march through Burns, a city of around 3,000. The procession made a stop by the Hammond residence and proceeded to make an appearance at the local sheriff"s office as well.
Enter Ammon Bundy.
Fast forward to November and Bundy"s son Ammon was busy trying to come up with a way to keep Dwight Hammond and his son from going back to jail. "Ammon Bundy met with Dwight Hammond and his wife in November, seeking a way to keep the elderly rancher from having to surrender for prison," The Oregonian writes, adding that "the Hammonds professed through their attorneys that they had no interest in ignoring the order to report for prison."
But while the Hammonds have apparently come to terms with their fate, Bundy hasn"t and in a brazen move, he and an unspecified number of "outside militants" seized control of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge headquarters, which is a short drive from Burns (where the protest took place).
Of course, the standoff ultimately ended with multiple arrests and the death of LaVoy Finicum.
Via John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute,
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government … doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety… It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.” - George Carlin
My friends, we’re being played for fools.
On paper, we may be technically free.
In reality, however, we are only as free as a government official may allow.
We only think we live in a constitutional republic, governed by just laws created for our benefit.
Truth be told, we live in a dictatorship disguised as a democracy where all that we own, all that we earn, all that we say and do—our very lives—depends on the benevolence of government agents and corporate shareholders for whom profit and power will always trump principle. And now the government is litigating and legislating its way into a new framework where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the inalienable rights of the citizenry.
We’re in trouble, folks.
Freedom no longer means what it once did.
This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from soldiers invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.
If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
The unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
In other words, if we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.
Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors are conspiring to corrode our core freedoms purportedly for our own good.
For instance, the protest laws being introduced across the country—in 18 states so far—are supposedly in the name of “public safety and limiting economic damage.”
Don’t fall for it.
No matter how you package these laws, no matter how well-meaning they may sound, no matter how much you may disagree with the protesters or sympathize with the objects of the protest, these proposed laws are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent.
In Arizona, police would be permitted to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent.
In Minnesota, protesters would be forced to pay for the cost of having police on hand to “police” demonstrations.
Oregon lawmakers want to “require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.”
A proposed North Dakota law would give drivers the green light to “accidentally” run over protesters who are blocking a public roadway. Florida and Tennessee are entertaining similar laws.
Pushing back against what it refers to as “economic terrorism,” Washington wants to increase penalties for protesters who block access to highways and railways.
Anticipating protests over the Keystone Pipeline, South Dakota wants to apply the governor’s emergency response authority to potentially destructive protests, create new trespassing penalties and make it a crime to obstruct highways.
In Iowa, protesters who block highways with speeds posted above 55 mph could spend five years in prison, plus a fine of up to $7,500. Obstruct traffic in Mississippi and you could be facing a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.
A North Carolina law would make it a crime to heckle state officials. Under this law, shouting at a former governor would constitute a crime.
Indiana lawmakers wanted to authorize police to use “any means necessary” to breakup mass gatherings that block traffic. That legislation has since been amended to merely empower police to issue fines for such behavior.
Georgia is proposing harsh penalties and mandatory sentencing laws for those who obstruct public passages or throw bodily fluids on “public safety officers.”
Virginia wants to subject protesters who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse” with up to a year of jail time and a fine of up to $2,500.
Missouri wants to make it illegal for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.”
Colorado wants to lock up protesters for up to 18 months who obstruct or tamper with oil and gas equipment and charge them with up to $100,000 in fines.
Oklahoma wants to create a sliding scale for protesters whose actions impact or impede critical infrastructure. The penalties would range from $1,000 and six months in a county jail to $100,000 and up to 10 years in prison. And if you’re part of an organization, that fine goes as high as $1,000,000.
Michigan hopes to make it easier for courts to shut down “mass picketing” demonstrations and fine protesters who block entrances to businesses, private residences or roadways up to $1,000 a day. That fine jumps to $10,000 a day for unions or other organizing groups.
Ask yourself: if there are already laws on the books in all of the states that address criminal or illegal behavior such as blocking public roadways or trespassing on private property—because such laws are already on the books—then why does the government need to pass laws criminalizing activities that are already outlawed?
What’s really going on here?
No matter what the politicians might say, the government doesn’t care about our rights, our welfare or our safety.
How many times will we keep falling for the same tricks?
Every despotic measure used to control us and make us cower and fear and comply with the government’s dictates has been packaged as being for our benefit, while in truth benefiting only those who stand to profit, financially or otherwise, from the government’s transformation of the citizenry into a criminal class.
Remember, the Patriot Act didn’t make us safer. It simply turned American citizens into suspects and, in the process, gave rise to an entire industry—private and governmental—whose profit depends on its ability to undermine our Fourth Amendment rights.
Placing TSA agents in our nation’s airports didn’t make us safer. It simply subjected Americans to invasive groping, ogling and bodily searches by government agents. Now the TSA plans to subject travelers to even more “comprehensive” patdowns.
So, too, these protest laws are not about protecting the economy or private property or public roads. Rather, they are intended to muzzle discontent and discourage anyone from challenging government authority.
These laws are the shot across the bow.
They’re intended to send a strong message that in the American police state, you’re either a patriot who marches in lockstep with the government’s dictates or you’re a pariah, a suspect, a criminal, a troublemaker, a terrorist, a radical, a revolutionary.
Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is deliberately stirring the pot, creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.
When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say, because government representatives have removed themselves so far from their constituents—then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
Then again, perhaps that was the government’s plan all along.
As John F. Kennedy warned in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
The government is making violent revolution inevitable.
How do you lock down a nation?
You sow discontent and fear among the populace. You terrorize the people into believing that radicalized foreigners are preparing to invade. You teach them to be non-thinkers who passively accept whatever is told them, whether it’s delivered by way of the corporate media or a government handler. You brainwash them into believing that everything the government does is for their good and anyone who opposes the government is an enemy. You acclimate them to a state of martial law, carried out by soldiers disguised as police officers but bearing the weapons of war. You polarize them so that they can never unite and stand united against the government. You create a climate in which silence is golden and those who speak up are shouted down. You spread propaganda and lies. You package the police state in the rhetoric of politicians.
And then, when and if the people finally wake up to the fact that the government is not and has never been their friend, when it’s too late for peaceful protests and violence is all that remains to them as a recourse against tyranny, you use all of the tools you’ve been so carefully amassing—the criminal databases and surveillance and identification systems and private prisons and protest laws—and you shut them down for good.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, once a government assumes power—unconstitutional or not—it does not relinquish it. The militarized police are not going to stand down. The NSA will continue to collect electronic files on everything we do. More and more Americans are going to face jail time for offenses that prior generations did not concern themselves with.
The government—at all levels—could crack down on virtually anyone at any time.
Martin Luther King saw it coming: both the “spontaneous explosion of anger by various citizen groups” and the ensuing crackdown by the government.
“Police, national guard and other armed bodies are feverously preparing for repression,” King wrote shortly before he was assassinated. “They can be curbed not by unorganized resort to force…but only by a massive wave of militant nonviolence….It also may be the instrument of our national salvation.”
Militant nonviolent resistance.
“A nationwide nonviolent movement is very important,” King wrote. “We know from past experience that Congress and the President won’t do anything until you develop a movement around which people of goodwill can find a way to put pressure on them… This means making the movement powerful enough, dramatic enough, morally appealing enough, so that people of goodwill, the churches, laborers, liberals, intellectuals, students, poor people themselves begin to put pressure on congressmen to the point that they can no longer elude our demands.
“It must be militant, massive nonviolence,” King emphasized.
In other words, besides marches and protests, there would have to be civil disobedience. Civil disobedience forces the government to expend energy in many directions, especially if it is nonviolent, organized and is conducted on a massive scale. This is, as King knew, the only way to move the beast. It is the way to effect change without resorting to violence. And it is exactly what these protest laws are attempting to discourage
We are coming to a crossroads. Either we gather together now and attempt to restore freedom or all will be lost. As King cautioned, “everywhere, ‘time is winding up,’ in the words of one of our spirituals, corruption in the land, people take your stand; time is winding up.”
