Facts are still thin, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the recent killings in Texas (DA, wife and Prosecutor) are #1 related and #2 retribution.
Have you noted how many in the "Liberty Sphere" are distancing themselves from that possibility and their own positions? Bob Owens, who I read and is on my blogroll, dropped the T word - Terrorism.
Let me go Socratic for a moment:
Is it "Terrorism" to kill someone who is attempting to infringe, or has infringed, a Natural or Constitutional Right?
Is it self defense if you do it during the infringement? Is it immoral to seek retribution if you have been infringed and go hunting after the fact?
If "Government" passes a law that infringes Natural or Constitutional Law, and then begins to enforce those laws, and you know that prison is imminent for getting caught breaking those laws and the Courts will not defend your Natural or Constitutional Rights - is it "Terrorism" or even immoral to defend yourself? To get payback if you have been infringed?
This topic - self defense in relation to your Natural and Constitutional Rights - is where those who believe in Rightful Liberty will separate from the rest of the herd. Especially when one begins speaking of supporting actors and beneficiaries of those infringements - such as Courthouse clerks and wives.
Here's the link to the Owens piece.
**UPDATE** And here is an Owens piece he just wrote that explains why I read they guy's words.
I'm not sure how he reconciles the first piece with the second, for the "fight" to which he refers in piece #2 is against the very people he seems to take out of the targeting matrix in piece #1.
But I'll keep reading to see where he draws his lines.
Kerodin
III
"Is it immoral to seek retribution if you have been infringed and go hunting after the fact?"
ReplyDeleteKeeping with the Socratic theme, could you tell me exactly what you'd be hunting for, there?
All I ask is that after you tell me what you call it, tell me what it is.
Well, live by the sword......
ReplyDeletecouple of statist apparatchniks getting sacked doesn't bother me much.
There will be an increase in people taking sick time and vacations, and an uptick in the number of people leaving positions they feel are dangerous to work in similar fields in “safe” jurisdictions, or leaving what they now view as a high-risk career field entirely.
ReplyDeleteSounds good to me.
Not sure how to take this entry of yours. I am a court reporter and work in the courts - is it okay to kill me because of my profession or, as you quaintly put it, as a beneficiary of these infringements?
ReplyDeleteCheryl: This is an excellent case study for people reading. This is where so many moral wrongs may happen, especially if people get into a Reign of Terror frenzy.
DeleteAs a court reporter, you do not have any place in the chain of people who are marched through the system. You don't pass the laws, enforce the laws, or keep the "criminals" in prison. A court reporter simply documents the proceedings.
There will be clear thinkers who say you, as a court reporter, do not deserve to be lumped in with legislators who pass unconstitutional laws, the cops and court players who enforce them, or the wardens and guards who hold people against their will for violating unconstitutional laws.
Yet in a Reign of Terror paradigm, you'll have some people who say "She took a paycheck from tax dollars (stolen money)as part of the system that oppressed us all, she's a cog in the machine, throw her in the pit!"
Given where you live, I suspect you won't have mobs looking to put heads on spikes as a court reporter. But Government workers in the DC Metro and in major cities will have a different kind of hunting pack loose - genuine mob mentality that label "all" government employees, at every level, as willful participants in their oppression. I suspect a court reporter in a major city would be seen as an "acceptable" target.
To answer you specifically: No, a court reporter would not be on my list. Nor would a dog catcher or a street sweeper or a person working in water supply or the firehouse. My threshold is "Did this person directly facilitate the infringement of Natural Rights?"
Now a question for you to consider: Does accepting tax money as your pay, knowing what you know about our system today, sit well with you? That's a question every government worker needs to ask himself, and what every government contractor needs to ask. This also applies to private contractors who accept pay simply to fix the plumbing in a home owned by a person who works for government - at what point are we part of the problem?
Of course, those questions are personal and rhetorical.
K
Let's put it back on you, Cheryl. How do you feel sitting quietly, stenoing away, in those cases where the system is grinding a decent citizen into less than dust? I know you can't pick and choose your cases and have to take the good with the bad. How do you rationalize it when you're party with...less than good situations and what should decent folk do about it?
ReplyDeleteDaniel
If you aren’t part of solution you are part of the problem, if someone has stepped off the porch because their personal line in the sand has been crossed, I am not the one to judge them, although in these cases it does look suspiciously like the work of the drug cartel. In the broader sense, if you don’t want to be a target of retribution, don’t play with the bad guys, how many times have innocents been wrongly accused and found “guilty by association”? If you swim with sharks you might get bit, If you beleive in restoration, there has to be a purge, the marxists know it and they have started theirs - they have the cover of “law” in which to implement their purge, we must win hearts and minds to be succesful in ours,(having good breath control is also helpful) as they increase in force against the citizenry more hearts will turn to the cause of liberty, treasonists will have to be dealt with, “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuerenburg, it’s not gonna work in Pittsburgh or your-burgh either. Choose who your gonna serve, good or evil, it is just that simple.
ReplyDeleteRichard R Deaver
III
Targeting the government is NOT "terrorism" - It is war.
ReplyDeleteWhatever role they play, government is government and ALL government will reap what they have sown.
If Cheryl and her ilk of civil servants wants to feed on the tit of ill-gotten gains, they will have to be cleansed of their infections. My advice... Choose the side you're willing to die for; Lincolnian statism or Jeffersonian freedom.
The restoration is coming and there will be NO compromise.
I'm not down on Cheryl, not at all. We need a judicial system with decent people running it. I was wondering about those cases where that system is being misused.
ReplyDeleteDaniel
Anyone who would support an unjust judicial system is a traitor to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance of the Law is not an excuse.
Furthermore, in proactive opposition to the modern cliche "Hate the game, not the player" I would suggest:
ReplyDeleteIf we exterminate the "players" there will be no "game."
Illuminos: You are right, if we can convince people that being a harmful "player" is Treason and dangerous to their place in our society, our republic will find her center once more.
DeleteK
There are more than a few in our community who work directly for Government at one level or another, one capacity or another. That, in and of itself, is not, or at least should not be, an indictment. What does the person do? Is the job one that, in any way, facilitates the infringement of Rightful Liberty?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Government is necessary for particular tasks - We the People need to assign particular tasks to "Government" that are impractical for us to do personally or via private sector. But that set of tasks is limited and finite, and paying people to do those tasks should not come from a personal income tax.
I continue to hold that if America were suddenly governed according to the limits of the Constitution at the Federal level, and by the ideals laid out in our DoI and BoR at the state level, 99.9% of our problems would cease to exist and even the most strident Anarchists and Secessionists would probably be content.
But to have any chance to get there, a LOT of people in America will need to be encouraged to leave our shores.
And no, Cheryl is not one of those people. I draw the line at intent. If the person means to do harm, or knowing facilitates or supports harm or infringement, they go to the head of the line. The list of people who knowingly seek to undermine our Founding Ideals is a LONG list, and those folks deserve our attention first.
K
"I continue to hold that if America were suddenly governed according to the limits of the Constitution at the Federal level..."
DeleteThis is not the time to abandon cold, hard logic. You offered a conditional (if ...) and the antecedent of that conditional (above) is DENIED. That is, it's false. All the dreaming, plans, intents or desires in the world ain't gonna make it happen. Period.
When the antecedent of a conditional is DENIED, the consequent (whatever would've followed) is irrelevant. In simpler terms, the condition is not met and will never be met, so what would've happened were it met doesn't matter. Live with it.
There's a bright side to this. Because the conditional is false, we don't have to worry about the wide split between where you draw the line and where others draw the line. Everyone can have whatever lines they want; they just won't have the Federal government to enforce them.