• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
73,082
Likes
34,637
#1
A Warning To The Feds On Incremental Prosecutions Of The Liberty Movement


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/24/2016 22:00 -0500


Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

At the very onset of what would become the Soviet Empire, Vladimir Lenin decreed the creation of a national internal army called the “Cheka.” The Cheka were handed very broad police powers and tasked with the disruption and elimination of any form of dissent within the communist system. Lenin launched what would later be known as the “Red Terror”, in which nearly every Russian population center had an established Cheka office of operations using surveillance, infiltration, nighttime raids, imprisonment, torture and execution to silence opposition to the authority of the state.

Some of these people were active rebels, some were outspoken political opponents and journalists, others were merely average citizens wrongly accused by neighbors or personal enemies. The Cheka created a society of fear and suspicion in which no one could be trusted and little criticism was spoken above a whisper anywhere, even in one’s own home.

It is important to note, however, that the dominance of the Cheka was established incrementally, not all at once.

Agents of the state began their “cleansing” of the Russian population by targeting specific groups at opportune times and worked their way through the citizenry at an exponential pace. The most intelligent, effective and dangerous activists and rebels were slated for destruction first, as they represented a kind of leadership mechanism by which the rest of the population might be mobilized or inspired. More innocuous organizations (like Christian churches and rural farmers) were persecuted as background noise while the political mop-up was underway.

Through this incrementalism, the communists were able to intern or eradicate vast numbers of potential opponents without the rest of Russians raising objections. The general populace was simply thankful that the eye of the Cheka had not been turned upon them, and as long as it was some other group of people unrelated to their daily life that disappeared in the night, they would keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

I would point out that the communists were very careful and deliberate in ensuring that the actions of the internal police were made valid through law and rationalized as a part of “class struggle.” Such laws were left so open to interpretation that literally any evil committed could later be vindicated. Man-made law is often a more powerful weapon than any gun, tank, plane or missile, because it triggers apathy within the masses. For some strange reason, when corrupt governments legalize their criminality through legislation or executive decree, the citizenry suddenly treats that criminality as legitimate and excusable.

Incremental prosecution and oppression is effective when the establishment wishes to avoid outright confrontation with a population. Attempt to snatch up a million people at one time, and you will have an immediate rebellion on your hands. Snatch up a million people one man at a time, or small groups at a time, and people do not know what to think or how to respond. They determine to hope that the authorities never get to them, that it will stop after a few initial arrests, or they hope that if they censor themselves completely, they will never be noticed.

In fact, corrupt governments issue warrants of arrest for a handful of dissenters and initiate imprisonment in a very public manner in the beginning with the express purpose of making examples and inspiring self censorship in the masses so that the authorities do not have to expend large amounts of resources to fight a more complex rebellion.

I bring up the historic example of the Cheka and incrementalism because a trend is brewing within our current establishment by which I believe a similar (if not more sterilized) brand of oppressive action is being planned against the liberty movement.

After the debacle in Burns, Oregon during the refuge standoff, federal officials immediately began a subtle campaign in the media promoting internal police powers that when examined in an honest light, are truly anti-liberty.

It remains my personal position according to the evidence I have seen that the refuge standoff was likely influenced by at least one if not more federal provocateurs and that Ammon Bundy was “encouraged” in his choice of actions and location by this person or persons. The goal? I can only guess that the intent was to trap the liberty movement in a Catch-22 scenario; either we join the poorly planned and executed standoff on some of the worst defensive ground possible and risk everything on one centralized event, or, we refuse to participate in the strategy and watch helplessly as a group of people, many with good intentions but little tactical sense or training, are arrested or killed. Either we gamble everything on the worst possible terms, or, we avoid the gamble and watch as the entire movement is made to look weak or incompetent by association with a few.

The majority of the movement chose the latter action, rightly I feel. Burns was no Bundy Ranch — everything about it felt rigged. And though there were many angry anonymous voices calling us “sunshine patriots” and “keyboard warriors” because we would not participate, apparently none of those loud mouths ever showed up in Burns either, so I am assuming they finally saw the wisdom in our decision.

It would seem as though the feds did not get exactly what they wanted out of the refuge standoff, but they have decided to squeeze as much advantage out of the event as possible.

Cliven Bundy was arrested after arriving by plane in Portland, Oregon, not on any charges relating to the refuge and his son Ammon, but on charges stemming from the Bundy Ranch standoff of 2014.

These charges include a strange and very broad legal measure relating to “interference with the duties of federal officials.” This in particular should be disconcerting to all of us, for “interference” could be any number of activities.

Any duties of federal officials that are not moral or constitutional should be interfered with in a tactically intelligent manner whenever possible. Such charges are a deliberate anathema to civil disobedience designed to counter immoral actions by government authorities. For any opposition could be deemed “interference” given a twisting of precedence, and thus treated as illegal.

In my recent article “Liberty Activists And ISIS Will Soon Be Treated As Identical Threats,” I examined statements made by the Justice Department’s chief of national security, John Carlin, in an article published by Reuters. Carlin and the Justice Department have made it clear that they intend to apply rules of prosecution used for foreign terrorist organizations to “domestic extremists.” The Oregon standoff was specifically mentioned as an example of such extremism.

Carlin claimed that domestic extremists represent a “clear and present danger,” alluding to the “Clear And Present Danger Doctrine” allowing the government in “times of national crisis” to prosecute almost any citizen giving “material support” to enemies of the state. “Material support” in the past has even included verbal opposition to government policies. Meaning, Carlin is testing the waters of material support laws and such tests may target liberty movement speakers and journalists along with anyone involved in physical opposition. As with the Cheka, no one is really safe.

These charges are also being brought in a retroactive manner, long after the supposed crimes have been committed as we have seen with Cliven Bundy. Meaning, the feds plan to retain warrants and prolong charges, only arresting people later when they think they can get away with it. This is where the incrementalism comes in…

Rumors of further indictments have surfaced possibly including dozens of people involved in the Bundy Ranch standoff. And because of the nature of the incremental game the government is playing, verification is difficult until the arrests are activated.

It has come to my attention from personal sources that there may be a lot of truth to the rumors of pending or retroactive indictments, and that the FBI in particular may be biding its time and waiting to bring charges when particular people are at their most vulnerable and when the movement is less likely to react. These sources have indicated that the federal government is seeking to work around the public relations problems of standoff scenarios like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Bundy Ranch. The feds may claim that they have “seen the light” in terms of avoiding outright mass murder, but I believe they have just found a better way to sneak past public opinion.

If they can manipulate the liberty movement into participation in poorly planned standoffs like Burns, Oregon, they will. Such standoffs are doomed from their inception and can even be controlled from within by agents provocateur. They are not a real threat.

If a standoff occurs organically, as it did at Bundy Ranch in Nevada, and public support is on the side of the liberty movement, then the establishment will simply back off and pluck activists from their homes or at the airport months later.

It is incumbent upon me to offer a warning to federal agencies in the event that incremental prosecution of liberty activists is truly a strategy they are planning to carry out: It is the general consensus of many in the liberty movement that ANY further arrests predicated on activism at Bundy Ranch or similar opposition events in the past to Bureau Of Land Management abuses of power will result in further and expanded engagements by activists. That is to say, such arrests and indictments will not be allowed to continue.

This is not a threat, this is fair warning to government agencies that they are walking a razor’s edge. Incremental prosecutions and dismantling of the liberty movement will not be tolerated; they represent a non-negotiable line in the sand. The feds may or may not care what the consequences will be for crossing this line. They may even think they want such consequences. Regardless, consequences there will be.

While the refuge occupiers essentially handed their heads to the feds on a platter, and the movement was not able to salvage the situation in any viable manner, this does not mean that liberty activists will not take measures during future events depending on the circumstances. Federal agencies may be quick to forget the massive response at Bundy Ranch. This is a mistake. They should probably expect a similar response, if not a more aggressive one, if further arrests are undertaken.

With the ethereal nature of criminal charges like “material support” or “interference with federal officials,” due process becomes a bit of joke. You see, federal agents and agencies, you have to take into account the reality that the liberty movement is well aware of the government push to remove due process altogether. With the AUMF and the NDAA, among other executive actions, we realize that the friendly mask of due process is worn by government today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

If the movement gives ground and does nothing while dozens or more are retroactively imprisoned one case at a time for opposing federal abuse, then how long will it be before the rest of us are imprisoned on even broader charges? How long before the mask comes off and the rendition and indefinite detention provisions of the AUMF and the NDAA come into play? Do you really expect the movement to put faith in due process given the circumstances? Of course you do not.

I would venture to guess that the feds think that any opposition that does arise during the execution of warrants against liberty activists will be “easily managed.” This would be a mistake.

We have seen this all before in the passive sublimation of past societies. We recognize the signs of trespasses to come. And if such trespasses are brought upon the liberty movement or the population at large, then many of us will adopt the attitude that there is not much left to lose.

Personally, I do not look forward to this kind of fight, but I have no illusions that it can be avoided given the course our country has taken. Federal agencies have deemed it a matter of national security to watch us all very closely. They should keep in mind, though, that we are also watching them.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-24/warning-feds-incremental-prosecutions-liberty-movement
 

AurumAg

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,770
Likes
18,483
Location
State of Jefferson
#2
Speak up while you can.

These are all the classic tactics used by DOJ and the greater Neo-Stazi DHS against groups like the Liberty Dollar, whose "crime" was actively advocating for an honest money system.

Bundy et al are being persecuted under the vague blanket of interference with feds.

Shades of post War of Northern Aggression Reconstruction.

Now the standing armies are interconnected in real-time within the net of light-speed communications.

Interesting time to be alive!
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,267
Likes
1,795
#3
It remains my personal position according to the evidence I have seen that the refuge standoff was likely influenced by at least one if not more federal provocateurs and that Ammon Bundy was “encouraged” in his choice of actions and location by this person or persons. The goal? I can only guess that the intent was to trap the liberty movement in a Catch-22 scenario; either we join the poorly planned and executed standoff on some of the worst defensive ground possible and risk everything on one centralized event, or, we refuse to participate in the strategy and watch helplessly as a group of people, many with good intentions but little tactical sense or training, are arrested or killed. Either we gamble everything on the worst possible terms, or, we avoid the gamble and watch as the entire movement is made to look weak or incompetent by association with a few.
They can never take responsibility for their own actions can they? It is always, always someone else's fault.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
8,629
Likes
20,403
Location
USA
#4
They can never take responsibility for their own actions can they? It is always, always someone else's fault.
It's amazing to me that one person can spew so much nonsensical, sheep-like stupidity on a regular basis, so often.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Sr Site Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
73,082
Likes
34,637
#6
Say what you want but part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your actions.

I agree but only up to a point.

Just a little food for thought...............

Lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Entrapment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Frameup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameup

Police perjury
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury

Why Police Lie Under Oath
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
12,955
Likes
23,581
Location
South Floriduh
#7
Don't confuse her. She will only respond with duck-billed platitudes.
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
8,629
Likes
20,403
Location
USA
#8
Say what you want but part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your actions.
Now that I think about it, you did post something a number of months back that I agreed with. You're right about taking responsibility for your actions, but so also do the government need to be responsible for their actions. They behave as if, since they have authority, anything goes. That attitude is becoming more prevalent as each year passes in this country. When will we reach the point where we are a police state? Perhaps we're already there.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
56,870
Likes
112,351
Location
Rocky Mountains
#9
They're supposidly OUR servants, not the other way around.

But then there is the rub...

If they truly were serving us, they wouldn't consider doing what they're doing, yet they are.

That leads one to question. It leads others to question those that question. Indictments of 'conspiracy' and acusations of 'conspiracy theorist' fly hither and yon. One 'looks' while the other refuses to 'see'.

Where does that leave us?

If you want to know the character of someone, watch their actions, because actions do speak louder than words.

The government is acting as if we are their subjects. We are acting as if the goverment is our master.

How did we arrive at this juncture?

We have accepted benefits from the government.

A contractual 'agreement' has been proffered and accepted, yet 'we the people' seem to forget that simple fact. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

The government is doing exactly what any corporation does to survive. It does whatever is in their best interests - not yours.

If it requires your signature, it's a contract.

Ignorance of 'the law' (even of which law system you are operating in) is no excuse. The government has no duty to inform you of the law. 'Due diligence' is what the 'honorable man' will endeavor to attain, but most rely (benefit) on the government to decide for them.

Most folks have been indoctrinated in goverment 'education' systems (benefit). They petition the government for 'license' (benefit) to do what is not illegal. Beacause of their lack of education, they actually believe what the government run schools teach is truth.

The question comes down to this: "Where do you stand?"

Once you figure that out, you'll know what your 'duty to perform' is and you'll act accordingly.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,869
Likes
7,960
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#10
The prudent man acts accordingly.

So a couple of workers were heading to Burns Tuesday and never made it. Stopped by Marion County sheriff's. In fact six cars. Well after all the impound s were cleared up the boys made it, minus the hay. Yeah the rig it was loaded on is still here on the west side. The one guy who had his rig impounded actually thought the cops should have been on his side. He did no like what I was telling him....he would rather throw away a month's wages than take a stand. Yeah....what's to be done with the brainwashed.?
 

Alric

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
7,267
Likes
1,795
#11
I agree but only up to a point.

Just a little food for thought...............
They were caught on video doing all this stuff. They wanted to do it. They admit to wanting to do such. Saying the police secretly tricked them into taking over the refuge in Oregon so they could arrest them is silly. What evidence do you have of that? This is stuff they are just pulling out of their ass.

Now that I think about it, you did post something a number of months back that I agreed with. You're right about taking responsibility for your actions, but so also do the government need to be responsible for their actions. They behave as if, since they have authority, anything goes. That attitude is becoming more prevalent as each year passes in this country. When will we reach the point where we are a police state? Perhaps we're already there.
In this case the people in question clearly committed a crime. You can say not being allowed to forcefully take over a government building and threaten government officials is a stupid law, but it is still a law that was legally passed. So it is entirely expected they would be arrested. If they really think it is an unconstitutional law they should be glad they were arrested, so they can challenge the law under the supreme court and get it thrown out.

They're supposidly OUR servants, not the other way around.

But then there is the rub...

If they truly were serving us, they wouldn't consider doing what they're doing, yet they are.
Yeah but most people support the police in this case, because the people in question got way carried away and broke the law. Most people don't want the rule of law to break down, and for there to be anarchy in the street. Which is why they do not support people threatening police with violence. Even if your initial argument is entirely justified and legal, when you start threatening people that is crossing a line that most people don't want crossed. They don't want arguments settled by whoever has the most guns and is the most willing to use them.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,869
Likes
7,960
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#12
Even if your initial argument is entirely justified and legal, when you start threatening people that is crossing a line

Bits....do U sea what eye C...?