Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Just to excite the Gunnies - an open letter to AG Holder

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Bend, May 7, 2009.

  1. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    "No More Free Wacos: An Explication of the Obvious Addressed to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States.

    Explication - noun; the act of making clear or removing obscurity from the meaning of a word, symbol or expression. -- Webster's Dictionary.


    5 May 2009

    Dear Eric,

    I believe I'm entitled to use your first name, since you have expressed an interest in circumscribing my liberty and seizing my personal property, to wit, three heretofore legal semi-automatic rifles of military utility (mistakenly dubbed "assault rifles"). Anyone who wants to do something so personal and intimate as to commit premeditated theft upon you need not be given any honorifics, don't you agree? I mean, if a street thug announces that he wishes to rob you, there is no need to address him as "Sir" this or "Mister" that. Why should rapacious government thieves who announce their intentions so boldly be treated any differently? If you are offended by the fact that you are unused to being addressed in this manner, I can only say that you are not as offended as I am at the prospect of your administration trying to steal my property and liberty.

    But, that is not why I write you today. No, I received what I believe to be a credible report this afternoon about someone whom the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives views as a real thorn in their side. The substance of the report has it that you, or someone in your office, has, in reference to this friend of mine, muttered something very much like the following:

    "What miserable drones and traitors have I nurtured and promoted in my household who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric! . . . Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

    That, of course, was Henry the Second speaking of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, in the year of our Lord 1170.

    Shortly thereafter, four of Henry's knights, Reginald Fitzurse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton entered Canterbury Cathedral, and beat Becket to death with swords, scattering his brains on the floor. "Let us go," said one, "this fellow will not be getting up again."

    That political murder had great consequences for Henry, and he regretted it the rest of his long reign.

    But enough of Henry. Let's talk about the alleged threat. I am sure that this is a base canard, something attributed to you by someone who just wishes to make trouble. However, as it happens, this is not the first time, or even the second, that I have heard such threats attributed to your department since the election.

    Yet, surely, such an educated man as yourself would not make King Henry's mistake. However, it seems likely that it did come out of your department, so let us say that in some perverted attempt to convey a threat to "this troublesome priest" one of your subordinates actually uttered it. Let us say, for purposes of hypothetical argument, that it is in some sense, true.

    I know how agencies can spin out of control if not properly guided by upper management. So do you. I'm sure that you saw the television images out of Texas on 28 February and 19 April 1993. I think you would agree with me that neither of those days likely represented the official policy of the Clinton administration. Yet, they happened.

    Subsequent to that, citizens formed self-defense militias, millions more of your hated "assault weapons" were imported and sold before the ban and we spent the next seven years staring uneasily at one another, waiting for the next government-issue bloody shoe to drop. Oh, yes, and your party lost control of the Congress, with even President Clinton blaming it on the passage of the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. The Law of Unintended Consequences sure sucks, doesn't it?

    But, the other shoe didn't drop.

    Yet, there's something you should understand about that whole process. As an amateur historian and keen observer of current affairs I can see it without difficulty.

    You only get one free Waco.

    If the statistics on the sales of firearms and ammunition tell you anything, you ought to understand that the same dynamic is at work now and yet from your point of view you haven't DONE anything to deserve it. Oh, you've muttered occasional threats to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, but no one believes politicians when they speak anyway.

    So why, you may ask yourself, is this happening?

    Like I said, Eric, you only get one free Waco. It was your original sin. The botched raid, the massacre, the cover-ups, we've been through them already. You may remember that no one was held to account for that -- not very reassuring to the citizenry. And if, as is apparent, someone in the Department of Justice hasn't learned the lessons of the first Waco, we, the millions of "bitter clingers" out here in fly-over country, have. We have no reason to be trusting of your motives. For we, and you, have been here before.

    So, let me explicate the obvious: There are no do-overs, not when it comes to your employees killing American citizens for bad reasons. Look around, count the guns, estimate the billions of rounds of small arms ammunition in private hands, and consider that the latest Janet has already declared most of the rest of us, including veterans, "domestic terrorists" anyway. Do you think we have not noticed? Do you think we do not remember the misdeeds of the last administration you were a part of?

    In addition, recent government misconduct -- bureaucratic, legal and judicial -- in the Wayne Fincher and David Olofson cases (the same kind of chicanery that rightly caused you to overturn the conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens) has convinced many of us that there is no percentage in betting on a fair trial if the ATF sets their sights on us and we are not part of the Mandarin class.

    If we are no longer under the rule of constitutional law but are merely subject to irreversible bureaucratic diktat and we do not fancy being railroaded in a patently unfair federal trial where expert witnesses are denied access to evidence, then our options when approached by ATF agents are rather limited. It is plain, in the absence of the right of a fair trial, that a target of ATF investigation has little to lose by resorting to the right of an unfair gunfight. This may be an unintended consequence of those cases. It is nonetheless real.

    Wake up and smell what your administration is shoveling from downwind, where we are forced to stand. And please understand the predicament you've put yourselves in by your present and former bad behavior.

    There will be no more free Wacos.

    Please, for all our sakes, counsel your employees, who apparently seek to curry your favor by misquoting you, that replicating 1993 is neither good policy nor is it your intention. We don't need any more itchy trigger fingers in this country.

    And Eric, not to put too fine a point on it, but you and I both can make an educated guess about what mischief will likely ensue if ANY high-profile Second Amendment activist "has an accident". Best to tell your lads and lasses to stick to those nice safe paper cases (you know, the ones with the 4473s completed with a "Y", rather than "yes") and confine their wet-work fantasies to their off-duty reading. There's still lots of vicious drug gangs, murderous career criminals and real terrorists out there to keep them busy without picking a fight with honest American gunowners who merely want to be left alone.

    Thank you for your kind attention in this matter. I wish you a nice, full and safe term of office. Really."

    Link
     
  2. RallySoob

    RallySoob Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    26
    interesting...

    almost sounds threatning but not. Sounds T.Mcveigh/T.Jefferson'ish
     
  3. tionico

    tionico Thurston County Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,219
    Likes Received:
    128
    too bad this is so far over any government stooge's head he'll not have the slightest hint what it is you're really on about.
     
  4. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm no "government stooge" - nor do I understand exactly what "you're really on about."

    While interesting and well-written, I don't get the reference to Beckett and the things that were supposedly said by...who? About whom?
     
  5. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    The point being, taken in light of the Obama Administration - If you irritate the King too much (by standing up for your 2A rights), standby to be "visited" by some Federal JBT's.

    "In June 1170, the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury held the coronation of Henry the Young King in York. This was a breach of Canterbury's privilege of coronation. In November 1170, Becket excommunicated all three. While the three bishops fled to the king in Normandy, Becket continued to excommunicate his opponents in the church. Soon word of this reached Henry who was in Normandy at the time.

    A Seal of the Abbot of Arbroath, depicting the murder of St. Thomas. Arbroath Abbey was founded 8 years after the death of St. Thomas and dedicated to him; it became the wealthiest abbey in Scotland.After these reports of Becket's activities, Henry is said to have raised his head from his sickbed and roared a lament of frustration. The King's exact words are in doubt, and several versions have been reported. The most commonly quoted is "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", but according to historian Simon Schama this is incorrect: he accepts the account of the contemporary biographer Edward Grim, writing in Latin, who gives us "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"[5][6] Many variations have found their way into popular culture. Whatever the King said, it was interpreted as a royal command, and four knights, Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Moreville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton, set out to consult the Archbishop of Canterbury. On 29 December 1170 they arrived at Canterbury. According to accounts left by the monk Gervase of Canterbury and eyewitness Edward Grim, they placed their weapons under a sycamore tree outside the cathedral and hid their mail armour under cloaks before entering to challenge Becket.[7] The knights informed Becket he was to go to Winchester to give an account of his actions, but Becket refused. It was not until Becket refused their demands to submit to the king's will that they retrieved their weapons and rushed back inside for the killing.[7] Becket, meanwhile, proceeded to the main hall for vespers. The four knights, carrying naked swords, caught up with him in a spot near a door to the monastic cloister, the stairs into the crypt, and the stairs leading up into the quire of the cathedral, where the monks were chanting vespers. Several contemporary accounts of what happened next exist; of particular note is that of Edward Grim, who was himself wounded in the attack.

    The burial of Becket This is part of the account from Edward Grim:

    ...The wicked knight leapt suddenly upon him, cutting off the top of the crown which the unction of sacred chrism had dedicated to God. Next he received a second blow on the head, but still he stood firm and immovable. At the third blow he fell on his knees and elbows, offering himself a living sacrifice, and saying in a low voice, 'For the name of Jesus and the protection of the Church, I am ready to embrace death.' But the third knight inflicted a terrible wound as he lay prostrate. By this stroke, the crown of his head was separated from the head in such a way that the blood white with the brain, and the brain no less red from the blood, dyed the floor of the cathedral. The same clerk who had entered with the knights placed his foot on the neck of the holy priest and precious martyr, and, horrible to relate, scattered the brains and blood about the pavements, crying to the others, 'Let us away, knights; this fellow will arise no more.'"
     
  6. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must be obtuse...I still don't get it.

    What does the history of Beckett's death have to do with your opposition to a called-for ban of certain types of semi-automatic rifles (if that is, in fact, what we're talking about)?

    Assuming this is an analogy...who is Becket in our modern world?

    Are you saying you know someone specifically who recieved word that Holder - or someone in his office - wants him dead - or at least arrested?
    for what?

    I'm getting more confused. What am I missing?
     
  7. terrylf72

    terrylf72 Portland, Oregon, United States Member

    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have to know.. after posting your letter, knowing that everything on internet is "watched"... Are there any black helo's or black vans/cars out infront of your house..

    HEHE

    :worship: :flag:

    But the trueth of the mater is, we are long past do for some house cleaning when it come to our government.. Even if it leads to another revolution!
     
  8. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    First of all, I did NOT write the letter. Please see the link at the bottom of the origional post. As for you being obtuse;: I guess if you did not live through the era of Ruby Ridge and Waco and watch the abuse of the Bill of Rights, then you have some reading to do.

    The author's point is that there will be dire consequences if something like RR and Waco happens again on Obama's watch. The freedom loving/BoR loving people will not stand for it and there will be a high price paid even if its a "communication mixup" like Air Force 1 flying over NY with no warning, for example.
     
  9. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh. Other than the link at the bottom, there was no other indication to the contrary.

    I did live through the era of Waco and Ruby Ridge (in fact, we have property in that area and I've been in the Boundary County courthouse many times). I have read about these cases - although perhaps not the same sources. My personal impression is that there were abuses and provocations from BOTH sides, and in both incidents. I don't believe we'll ever know the whole truth about either incident.

    But David Koresh is no hero of mine, and not someone I mourn. He was, by many accounts, a child molester and a megalomaniac who believed it was his job to personally open the "seventh seal" and usher in Armageddon. The government screwed it up - but I believe they were intentionally provoked into a gun fight. I also believe the reports that the fires in the compound were most likely ignited from within.
     
  10. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    "... there was no other indication to the contrary. "

    Other than the qoute marks at the beginning and end.
     
  11. Dutchman6

    Dutchman6 Pinson, AL New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    RainbowBob sez: I must be obtuse...I still don't get it.

    What does the history of Beckett's death have to do with your opposition to a called-for ban of certain types of semi-automatic rifles (if that is, in fact, what we're talking about)?

    Assuming this is an analogy...who is Becket in our modern world?

    MBV: If I was interested in making a specific claim I would have. Holder actually is quite well aware of whom the letter is talking about. He has never broken any law and has used the legal system to give the ATF fits. They are tired of it and someone in DOJ is interested in making the "problem" go away. The Becket analogy came straight from the source, and if true, straight from Holder's own mouth, therefore, he knows who is being referenced here.


    Are you saying you know someone specifically who recieved word that Holder - or someone in his office - wants him dead - or at least arrested?
    for what?

    MBV: Either, or both. Yes.

    I'm getting more confused. What am I missing?

    MBV: You are missing the fact that the old political verities do not apply and that we are through the looking glass in the world of the Red Queen. It was suggested to me by someone in the bureaucracy that this letter needed to be written. The fear is that that the Obamanoids are actually worse than the Clintons -- that is, that the Clintonistas were children in the playground pounding on an atomic bomb they dug up with their plastic shovels with little rubber mallets, unaware of the titanic social forces they were messing with. The Obamanoids on the other hand, with many key members of their administration being Clintonista call-backs, UNDERSTAND the nature of the bomb they're banging on with real ball peen hammers and think that when it goes off it will merely destroy people they view as enemies.

    The point of the letter is to get across Sir Thomas More's argument in A Man for all Seasons that when the law no longer protects their enemies, it no longer protects them either.

    It is no more threatening than jumping out into the round to try and flag down a speeding car, in the sure and certain knowledge that there is a bridge out around the next turn. We are trying to save them from themselves, and the peace of the country at the same time.

    Wars are started most often because the antagonists do not believe that they will, or, that they will be over within a short time. If both sides understand it is mutual assured destruction, then conflict is less likely. The problem here is that one side believes that they got away it before and thus they can get away with it again. I'm trying to tell them the solemn truth that they cannot. THAT is apparantly what you are missing.

    In truth this is an extension of a cold war we fought with the Clintonistas in the 90s. Reference: To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face by Prof. Robert Churchill, University of Michigan Press, 2009.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
     
  12. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    I am not sure the above actually came from MBV being on this board. Those responses (quotes) are very similar to his postings on his and other blog's comments section. They could have been cut and pasted here by someone else that follows Mike and signed up here today. Yes, I know the location listed.

    I could be wrong, hope I am. :thumbup:

    JeffersonvWaxmanguns.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  13. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK...now I'm COMPLETELY confused by this thread.

    Who's ideas are being presented? By whom? Who was threatened by the Justice Dept? For what?

    Who's on first?

    Awww...fuggedaboudit!
     
  14. Bend

    Bend Central OR Member

    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    2
    Take your meds, Bob. Also, take a nap then get a good night's sleep and read the entire thread again in the morning. If it still does not make sense, forget about it. :paper:
     
  15. fingolfen

    fingolfen Oregon Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3
    His blog is always a good read. I think we're going to start seeing a rise in self-reliance in the nation in these hard times.

    The government can't keep spending at its current rate to "take care" of people ($1.8 TRILLION deficit this year boys and girls!). That means a lot of people who have rested in the arms of the nanny state are in for a rude awakening.

    You also see a lot of people picking up Ayn Rand again - more people understanding that government has just gotten TOO big. You're seeing it at the state level as well with the socialist states like California nearly going belly up.

    I'd love to see a Jeffersonian renaissance in Federal and State government.
     
  16. Dutchman6

    Dutchman6 Pinson, AL New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I am not sure the above actually came from MBV being on this board. Those responses (quotes) are very similar to his postings on his and other blog's comments section. They could have been cut and pasted here by someone else that follows Mike and signed up here today. Yes, I know the location listed. I could be wrong, hope I am."

    You are wrong. I am me, or someone like me. As in "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him."

    No one would want to imitate me anyways. Stealing my identity is fraught with unknowable risks and not for the intelligent or faint-hearted. Of course, that still leaves plenty of room for the stupid.

    Remember that while it is possible there are 535 reasons that David Rockefeller hates you personally, it is statistically improbable. And if you think your television is spying on you, merely make faces back at it.

    An anecdote from the 90s.

    (Phone rings after midnight. I pick it up.)

    Heavy breather: "I'm gonna kill you."

    MBV: (Laughs.) "Riiiight."

    Heavy breather: "I'm gonna KILL you."

    MBV: "Look pal, you don't know the difference between real sex and masturbation. If you were gonna kill me, you'd just do it. You wouldn't be beating your gums and beating your meat calling me up to tell me about it."

    Heavy breather: (Silence.)

    MBV: "Besides, what kind of moron calls up and makes a death threat on a phone line that's under federal court-ordered wire tap?!?"

    Heavy breather: (Click.)

    True story. Happened to the real me. Now if I can just find where the real me got off to . . . ;)

    Mike Vanderboegh
    PO Box 926
    Pinson, AL 35126
     
  17. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bend: Got any to spare? I'm pretty sure I'm gonna need whatever you're on to understand all this high government intrigue.

    MVB: I'm glad to hear you're you. It seems a little pretentious to believe that the AG know exactly who you are and who you're talking about in your cryptic letter.

    Why beat around the bush? Why not write a letter that says "My name is so-and-so. I was told you made a threat against the life of my friend so-and-so. You are on notice to cease and desist or face the legal and political consequences."
     
  18. Dutchman6

    Dutchman6 Pinson, AL New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Why beat around the bush? Why not write a letter that says "My name is so-and-so. I was told you made a threat against the life of my friend so-and-so. You are on notice to cease and desist or face the legal and political consequences."

    (Sigh). Ever hear of Google? Try it some time. Then try, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (pp. 34-36, IIRC); In Bad Company by Prof. Mark Hamm (I'm in the footnotes); Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face by Prof. Robert Churchill (you'll find more about me here than anywhere). There was a George Magazine article sometime in the 90s. Fifteen seconds of non-fame, but it should give you basis for understanding, if you're willing to make the effort.

    Holder knows of me because we crossed swords during his Clintonista cover-up life. He knows who I was talking about in the letter because even if he didn't say what was attributed to him, the man has caused the ATF more grief than any other single person recently.

    This letter is an extension of the cold war we fought against the Clintonistas. It is written as it is because it couldn't be written any other way, and if you study the repressive legislation enacted since the middle of the Clinton Administration you'll understand what I mean.

    Extrapolating from your own ignorance is a good way to get embarrassed. Accept the letter at face value. Holder, I'm sure, already has.

    Mike Vanderboegh
     
  19. RainbowBob

    RainbowBob North Seattle Member

    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0

    MVB: Let me see if I have this straight: You want me to Google and read everything you ever appeared in as a footnote...then study the history of repressive legislation enacted during the Clinton Administration...in order to attempt to decipher what you mean?

    Yeah...I'll get right on that.


    Oh, I don't mind. I don't have the kind of ego you apparently do, so a little embarrassment every once in a while doesn't bother me so much.
     
  20. Dutchman6

    Dutchman6 Pinson, AL New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Let me see if I have this straight: You want me to Google and read everything you ever appeared in as a footnote...then study the history of repressive legislation enacted during the Clinton Administration...in order to attempt to decipher what you mean? Yeah...I'll get right on that. Oh, I don't mind. I don't have the kind of ego you apparently do, so a little embarrassment every once in a while doesn't bother me so much."

    Let me rephrase that to maximize your understanding.

    OK.

    You don't know bubblegum from shinola and yet you demand, based entirely upon your ignorance of shinola, to be enlightened as to the difference with bubblegum, which you evidently DO understand. We must then fall back upon Wright's Razor, to wit,

    "Some things in life are so true and so self-evident on their face, that if you have to explain them, the stupid sonofabubblegum will never get it anyway."

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Mike Vanderboegh.