Archive for the ‘Press’ Category

When the Media Picks Sides, the Media Dies

Wednesday, November 14th, 2012

A glimpse into the next civil war: Matt Bracken’s “What I Saw At The Coup”.

The first real jolt indicating a serious problem with the plan came when television reporter Cathy Carlsen was killed in Norfolk, shot dead while covering the commissioning of the Harvey Milk, the Navy’s newest destroyer. That she was killed was bad enough. That it happened on a “secure” naval base—a federal installation—made it much worse. Her blood splattered across the Admirals’ white uniforms made quite a picture. The videos…

We were two women born in the same year, with similar academic backgrounds. We had known each other for decades, and her untimely death hit me hard. Cathy Carlsen had been a reliable voice on the progressive side of a supposedly impartial television news network. That a respected member of the media would be assassinated was big surprise, at least to me. Up to that point, only a few federal officials and high-ranking agents had been targeted.

Then new photo was released on the internet. I had always thought the NSA could trace those things back to their origins, but apparently not. The photo was taken through the Norfolk sniper’s rifle scope just a few moments before the murder. It showed thin black crosshairs and other reference marks across Cathy’s smiling face. And it showed some text added just above her head:

If the media lies, the media dies.
You take a side, you’re along for the ride.
A traitor in front of a camera is still just a traitor.

This single act of domestic terrorism immediately dampened the enthusiasm of most of our formerly reliable reporters to continue to carry our water. More such photographs of other media figures appeared on the internet with crosshairs over their faces. Most of the pictures were bogus, just photoshop pranks, but they had a similar effect: our dependably cooperative reporters suddenly lost their nerve.

This is the single most important thing that has to be hammered into the brains of the press if “the next civil war” is to be avoided.

And make no mistake: the narrator here, a White House official, is exactly right in describing this action as an “act of domestic terrorism”.

That is what we will be reduced to if this ever comes to pass, and it would be a terrible thing. Insurgents, which is what anyone with any right to call himself a patriot would be, will do horrible, ugly, brutal things in the name of liberty. They will become what they hate.

This account is severely sanitized. There is little or no chance, I think, that the war would actually go this smoothly, or end this quickly.

I really don’t want to see this.

But you journalists out there? We won’t spare you, can’t spare you. You’ll be very near the head of the line.

You may even be first.

I’m not advocating anything here. I do not not not want to see this happen.

But to stop it, journalists must start doing the job that is recognized in the First Amendment. You must again become the watch dog press, relentlessly gnawing at the seats of the powerful, regardless of party, ripping at their throats when necessary.

Otherwise…

The crosshairs await.

Presidential Bribery

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

You have got to be kid… you’re not. This is a real thing.

Cranky D’s utterly devastating comment over at Protein Wisdom:

So, the government is going to provide the funds to pay the fines they impose on the contractors for non-compliance with regulations written by the government.

This was attached to Darlene Click’s post of the National Journal article concerning—and honestly, I don’t know why there are not at this moment union riots all over the land—this act of bribery by the Obama administration:

The White House moved to prevent defense and other government contractors from issuing mass layoff notices in anticipation of sequestration, even going so far to say that the contracting agencies would cover any potential litigation costs or employee compensation costs that could follow.

Some defense companies—including Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and EADS North America—have said they expect to send notices to their employees 60 days before sequestration takes effect to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires companies to give advance warning to workers deemed reasonably likely to lose their jobs.

Why does King Zero want to do this? Because layoffs from sequestration, an automatic massive cut in Defense spending, would take place in January, the notices would, must go out, get this, five days before the election.

And, you know, the optics on that would not be all that positive.

As Light29ID at The Idiotarian Rottweiler points out:

If Obongo get reelected (God save our souls) he’ll just screw them anyway and they know it because there won’t be anyone or anything to stop him. He hates free market companies and he despises the military, and in particular, defense contractors.

This has got to be grossly, wildly, blatantly illegal. [update: And if it's not, there is no law; it is completely illegitimate.] It is a betrayal of the companies involved and the workers who voted for King Zero, if any. Plus, may I add, any company that falls for this deserves to go down in flames, and I am not being metaphorical here.

I Am Andrew Breitbart

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

Well, no, I’m not. I am too puny and weak and stupid and cowardly to be Andrew Breitbart.
But I’m not keeping silent any more, either.

We are in the middle of a War of Ideas. At stake is nothing less than the principles of inalienable rights and freedom upon which the United States was founded.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

A seated President is openly demonizing our best and brightest, stoking the embers of class-envy, courting mob violence and racial animus, ruling by fiat, bypassing Congress, brazenly defying court orders, and publicly expressing admiration for the “efficiency” of totalitarianism.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Such were my thoughts last night as I was having a quiet drink at the Huntington Langham Hotel.  I saw the hashtag thread #IAmAndrewBreitbart and drew some cheer from it. I mentally debated whether to add to the thread and thought, “Ahh, to hell with it. One tweet. Nobody’ll even notice.”

Besides, I had no choice. The tag was a play on the signature line from Spartacus, and I was a writer-producer on the first season of Sparatcus: Blood and Sand. It seemed preordained.

And thusly I tweeped:

“I wrote Spartacus, and #IAmAndrewBreitbart”

I got a response. Clever stuff. Typically mindless Leftist-style zombie-chant:

“HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIED HE LIED AND HE DIEDHE LIED AND HE DIED”

Stupid stuff. A bullshit schoolyard taunt designed to get a rise out of me. Wouldn’t have phased me any other night.

But last night, something snapped.

12 years of silence. 12 years of cowardice. 12 years of humiliating self-censorship. 12 years of hiding what I think, who I am and what I believe in order to protect my livelihood.

And Andrew Breitbart is dead.

It all just started bleeding out of me, white hot, 140 characters at a time. All my rage. All my indignation. Like the jetting pulse from a slashed carotid, for the whole world to see.

Then came the emails. And the Follows. 1,000 in about an hour. My jaws clenched, tears blurred my vision as I typed (as they blur them now as I type): My hero is dead. Andrew Breitbart is dead.

Long live Andrew Breitbart.

#IAmAndrewBreitbart.

I don’t even have a Wall,  or a Twitter account, nor do I plan to get one. There are places I’d love to comment at, and can’t because I don’t have those keys.

Still:

#IAmAndrewBreitbart

Justice or Gang Intimidation?

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

First I heard of the Kenneth Green story was at Second City Cop, a pro-Second Amendment Chicago police blog I trust for insider news of top-down corruption.

SCC points to this article by Chuck Goudie of the Daily Herald.

The most dangerous place for a Chicago police officer is:

a. Face-to-face with a heavily armed drug gang.
b. Trapped by gangbangers at the end of a dark alley in Englewood.
c. Cornered by some lifers carrying shivs at Stateville prison.
d. Sitting in a Cook County courtroom.

The correct answer is d.

Or at least it was last Friday.

That is when the man in the mug shot was allowed to go home, after being found not guilty of shooting and trying to kill two Chicago police officers.

You didn’t hear anything about the trial, maybe because the cops were just wounded and survived the July 2009 shooting. It probably attracted little attention because the case should have been a lock for prosecutors.

The guy’s name is Kenneth Green. He was 21 years old at the time and living in an apartment near 112th Street and Michigan Avenue in Roseland.

A special Chicago police team raided his place with a search warrant for drugs. Imagine one of those scenes on the copper TV shows: doors fly open, guns out, lots of yelling. They are among the riskiest moments in any police officer’s life.

On that day two years ago, veteran officers Scott McKenna and Danny O’Toole were on the warrant team doing what they had done many times. The police team bursts in and spreads out, clearing the apartment room by room to make sure the search for drugs can safely begin.

Rarely do these “jobs,” as the police refer to them, go as planned. It takes incredible awareness, split-second reactions and extraordinary judgment. The wrong decision can mean people end up dead.

I strongly urge you to read the whole thing.

Indeed, this “job” did not go according to plan. Fortunately, in this case no one died, but two officers were shot in their legs.

The problem with the trial, according to Goudie and SCC, is that the courtroom was packed with Green’s fellow gang members, whose presence “intimidated” the jury into finding Green not guilty.

I’m sorry, SCC, but something about this bothered me at the time, although I didn’t know what. As is often the case, however, I thought I detected a whiff of cops versus everybody else, where “everybody else” means “ungrateful perps, most of whom haven’t been arrested or convicted yet.”

Finally, via Pete Guither at Drug WarRant, I hear the other side of the story.

A criminal defense attorney in Chicago represented a client who was involved in a situation we’ve seen far too often in this destructive war: SWAT-style serving of a search warrant with no investigation or knowledge of who or what is in the house. In this case, a resident managed to get off four shots aimed low through his bedroom door at what he thought were violent criminal intruders, and he (as well as six children in the house) managed to avoid being killed by the 37 shots fired by police. Naturally, he was charged with attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery.

Here is the closing argument. Simple, powerful, effective.

I’m not even going to quote defense attorney Marcus L. Schantz’s closing argument. Read the whole thing.

SCC makes this comment:

Goudie outlines the case against the shooter, the blatant disregard for human life exhibited by the shooters, the amazing restraint by the officers.

“Blatant disregard for human life”, SCC? Green fired four shots, aiming low, at violent intruders who, more or less blindly fired 37 shots into a house they knew had children in it, intruders who turned out to be police officers showing “amazing restraint”.

SCC, want to know why The People are showing growing distrust and resentment against The Police? This is why. We’re just as intimidated by you as we are by any other gang. Sure, they can pack a courtroom, but we know the courtroom exists, along with the entire weight of the criminal justice system. We see your cars, your uniforms, your badges. We watch you on TV. We read about you in the papers.

When you follow us on the streets, you think we’re not intimidated?

I can see no reason why a SWAT style dynamic entry was needed in this case. Your colleagues weren’t rescuing a hostage, they were serving a drug warrant. Fine. Bust the guy as he leaves his house. Might evidence get flushed down the toilet? You know what, if it was, the amount was so small that it could be flushed away, it does not represent a significant threat to the community that justifies the risk to either cops or the occupants.

You often complain, SCC, of how there aren’t enough cops on the street to do the job you are asked to do.

This kind of action is not the job we citizens want you to do. We don’t believe in the War on Drugs. We certainly don’t believe a flushable quantity of crack is worth risking your lives, or ours, in a dynamic entry.

You’ve been an advocate of the Second Amendment, SCC, for which I admire and applaud you. However, you seem to think armed citizens will only shoot at bad guys. Guess what, though? If you and your fellow cops act like arrogant gangsters, we’ll shoot at you, too, and increasingly, you’re going to find that when that happens, the rest of us will acquit the shooter at trial.

We fear gangs, SCC. We are intimidated.

But, again, not just by packed court rooms; increasingly, by the courtrooms themselves, by a justice system that seems not concerned with justice, and not on our side.

We want you on our side, SCC. We want to see you as our allies, as our fellow citizens. “The police are the people, and the people are the police,” says Peel, and I believe that.

But you have got to stop busting through our bedroom doors, guns blazing, over a few grams of contraband. That is not “a duty incumbent on every citizen”.

One more point: The defense attorney’s closing argument is dense with fact. It raises prosecution points one after another, often using the testimony of the police themselves, and counters them.

Goudie’s Herald article does not “outline the facts”; it’s is almost nothing but sensationalism, starting with the little pop quiz identifying the courtroom as more dangerous to cops than the street. It doesn’t even try to present the defense case. The police say Green’s a bad guy doing bad things, we should trust them and convict him of whatever the prosecution chooses to charge him with. Case closed.

Um, no. Green’s case is closed, and not in favor of the police, the prosecutor, or the courts. However, the case against the Drug War, the war on the people, the war on the Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments, is still being made.

Beat ‘Em Up

Monday, January 17th, 2011

First, Billy Beck:

Adults don’t get to pick a fight and then call “time out!” like an eight year-old when it goes wrong on them.

You step in it: you bloody walk through it like a grown-up.

Then Don Surber lets loose with this barrage of invective:

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

[And yes you absolutely should read every tiniest drop of venom; it's lovely.]

And finally, we see this magnificent statement of principle in the face of the unprincipled in, of all places, a SF steampunk comic, Girl Genius, which I have linked before, I believe:

When you gleefully pummel your opponents, when you mock decency, when you call for “no quarter” on your way up, expect no less on your way down.

[The yellow-haired girl in the pink sweater, Zola, drops into this scene here. She deserves every bit of the pummeling she's receiving.]

QotD: “Things That Are Good”

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Insty, about the rude audience and press response to O’Donnell’s claim that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution (it doesn’t, of course).

The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want. QED. How can those dumb wingnuts not understand this simple logic?

This is, in essence, the entire liberal debate strategy.

Joe McCarthy: Right All Along

Saturday, July 24th, 2010

The idea that Senator Joe McCarthy was correct about Communists infesting the government and entertainment industry is gaining currency. The Beeb is among the latest to realize this:

David Aaronovitch thinks the unthinkable about the McCarthy period.

The hunt for the so called ‘Reds under the beds’ during the Cold War is generally regarded as a deeply regrettable blot on U.S history. But the release of classified documents reveals that Joseph McCarthy was right after all about the extent of Soviet infiltration into the highest reaches of the U.S government.

Thanks to the public release of top secret FBI decryptions of Soviet communications, as well as the release under the fifty year rule of FBI records and Soviet archives, we now know that the Communist spying McCarthy fought against was extensive, reaching to the highest level of the State department and the White House.

We reveal that many of McCarthy’s anticommunist investigations were in fact on target. His fears about the effect Soviet infiltration might be having on US foreign policy, particularly in the Far East were also well founded.

The decrypts also reveal that people such as Rosenberg, Alger Hiss and even Robert Oppenheimer were indeed working with the Soviets. We explore why much of this information, available for years to the FBI, was not made public. We also examine how its suppression prevented the prosecution of suspects.

Finally, we explore the extent to which Joseph McCarthy, with his unsavoury methods and smear tactics, could have done himself a disservice, resulting in his name being forever synonymous with paranoia and the ruthless suppression of free speech.

The programme airs Sunday at 13:30 on BBC Radio 4 (FM only).

Via Samizdata, which notes:

I distrust that last bit, about McCarthy’s “unsavoury tactics” being to blame for his failure. It was McCarthy’s fault that the Bolsheviks weren’t unmasked? I wait to be convinced that what saved the Bolsheviks of that time and place was Joe McCarthy’s ineptness. I prefer the more obvious explanation, which is that the very Bolsheviks who had, as McCarthy rightly claimed, dug themselves into the US government were the ones who stopped him.

This may also be available on the Web; I hope so, because it’s an important topic.

DMCA Drops Another Good Guy

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Clayton Cramer thinks he’s not making enough of a difference to keep going in the face of frivolous lawsuit thugs like those over at Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Today, The Armed Citizen received informal notice in the form of a media inquiry about a lawsuit against this website and its owners, David Burnett and Clayton Cramer. The lawsuit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

According to news reports, Righthaven LLC has reportedly filed lawsuits against 75 other political websites and/or blogs without prior contact or attempt at resolution. The sites include FreeRepublic.com, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The “offending” entries consist of six stories, some of which were short enough to qualify under the Fair Use Rule, out of nearly 4,700 entries. The six stories are still publicly available on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website, to which we linked.

The Armed Citizen has been excerpting articles from newspaper, TV station, and radio station websites for a number of years. If any copyright holders decided that The Armed Citizen had exceeded fair use, they only needed to send us an email. Instead, in a bid to target and intimidate small websites, they have chosen to pursue legal action.

At this time, the future of The Armed Citizen is uncertain, and possibly in jeopardy, thanks to Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Their contact information is listed below.

Las Vegas Review-Journal
1111 W. Bonanza Road
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125

Main phone number:
702-383-0211

Newspaper office number:
702-383-0264

Copy of Lawsuit (As forwarded by a reporter…The Armed Citizen has received no official notice of pending litigation.)

To e-mail David and Clayton, write to Tips@thearmedcitizen.com

Further information:
Las Vegas newspaper sues websites over use of content
Conservative website among 3 sued over R-J copyrights
LV Review-Journal may be violating law with selective copyright suits
REVIEW-JOURNAL SUES ITS OWN SOURCE

UPDATE: It turns out that the minimum amount of a controversy filed in federal court involving citizens of multiple states is $75,000 (which is something that I already knew). The lawyers are relying on us to “settle” because they know darn well that their actual damages aren’t even close to $75,000. They might have trouble proving $75 worth of actual damages. This is perilously close to extortion. Interesting discussion of this over here.

UPDATE 2: These lawyers have filed dozens of such suits, always demanding $75,000 (the federal controversy minimum)–and it looks like some people are starting to fight back. I wonder how many people like me showing up and demanding proof of $75,000 in damages before some federal judge tells these crooks to go chase ambulances, like other shysters.

UPDATE 3: I have taken down the entire Armed Citizen blog. It’s just too dangerous. And this blog may go away tomorrow as well. It’s just too dangerous. There are criminal enterprises out there prepared to use the law in ways that it was not intended.

The Armed Citizen ran excerpts of news stories of armed citizens defending themselves. It was an astonishing resource, and its loss is a serious blow to those attempting to legitimize the right of the people to manage their own lives. I visited there occasionally, and the excerpts were just that, unless the story was no more than a few lines, impossible to excerpt meaningfully.

After the above post went up, Cramer followed with two more, preserved here for posterity in case they go away:

There Are Days It Just Isn’t Worth It

I’ve spent quite a bit of the last twenty years trying to make a difference in the political system. Garbage like this below makes me wonder if it is too late to solve this country’s problems, and maybe I should stop trying to make it better. It’s just not worth it.

The End

I’ve decided that the costs of liablity insurance are too high to make this continue to make sense, especially in light of sleazy garbage such as the Las Vegas Review-Journal lawsuit. (And ironically, we are supposedly on the same side.) America is enthusiastically headed into a cesspool, I’m not doing anything that is likely to even slow the downslope speed of destruction. Tonight I will download everything from the blog, and delete everything but this explanation.

Thanks to all the readers who have provided encouragement over the years. America is in a death spiral.

[The words that follow are my own; Cramer is in no way responsible for them and is not aware of them as I post.]

Cramer was one of the good guys; he exposed Bellesiles’ lies (I have the book, Armed America, he wrote in the aftermath of that, documenting that guns have been part of American culture since the earliest colonial days, and establishing that some of the earliest gun laws were aimed at the disenfranchised: slaves, Indians, indentured servants.) He helped write briefs for both the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, and has had the heady experience of being quoted in the decisions.

The most distressing thing about this that he’s not being taken down in the fight with anti-gunners; it’s the damn copyright lawyers, and the thrice damned DMCA that gives them teeth. Cramer is not stealing the works of others in any significant way, he is clearly in the “safe harbour” provisions, but he is still being attacked, and not, I suspect, because of any concern about copyrights, but as outright extortion, simply in the hope that he will cave.

I sincerely hope he reconsiders, and begins blogging again. I could wish that he would blog, be damned to the thugs at the Review-Journal and their lawyers, and be prepared to go out shooting when they came for him, or even allow himself to be arrested as an act of civil disobediance, but he has a family and responsibilities I do not, and has already done far more for the cause than most.

And you know, I think that it is not his responsibilities that stop him. It’s that he thinks America is failing, as an enterprise, losing its compass, and that the fight is not worth the sacrifice.

I hope he’s wrong.

But I fear he’s right.

God speed, Clayton, little though that may mean coming from a skeptic like me.

I pray your light has not gone out, but is only dimmed, for awhile, until the vultures have passed.


Update:
Rob Allen at Sharp as a Marble has picked up on this; lots of good comments there.

Presumption of Competence

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Son of a gun.

No sooner had I posted my “elevator pitch” for liberty, but Billy Beck points me to Wendy McElroy’s excellent expansion of the idea, “A Legal Presumption of Competence.”

A core principle of the Nanny State is that people do not know their best interests and must be treated like children with the State acting as guardian. Indeed, that’s where the word “nanny” comes from. The Nanny State proceeds from the presumption that you are incompetent to administer your own life. Even fully-functioning adults are deemed unable or unwilling to make wise decisions and, so, the state rushes in to fill the void with extensive regulation of every individual’s personal health and safety.

How much transfat or salt can be in your fast food burger? You are too obese, too nutritionally ignorant, too addicted to McDonalds to be trusted. Should you smoke, drink, or chow down on sweets? Of course not! But if you do, then, like a good parent, the State will force you to bear the cost of irresponsibility by uber-taxing your minor vices and imprisoning you for the major ones.

The “wise parent” list scrolls on and on: wear a helmet while bicycling, don’t use saccharine, no public nudity, don’t loiter in parks, monitor your words to coworkers, don’t download porn, take a urine test at work, don’t drive too fast, take only approved drugs and only in the prescribed fashion, strap on your safety belt, pay a tax for the error of fast food, no smoking in public places, register your handgun, don’t use incandescent bulbs, recycle, homogenize all milk, buy health insurance. . . . And, recently, Maine was pushing to eliminate sex-specific bathrooms because separate “men’s” and women’s” rooms discriminate against your gender rights. Yes, where you take a piss is now a matter of state to be debated by legislatures, and all because they want to protect you. Happily, Maine has backed away from politicizing toilets.

It gets better. Read it all.

But especially read this:

There is a word to describes the situation in which another party claims ownership over the body of another: it is “slavery.” As such, the Nanny State is misnamed. Although it would like to project the image of a wise guardianship of children — a sort of stern Mary Poppins who uses a “spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down” — a more accurate image is that of a slave owner. One hand of the Nanny State may be wagging an admonishing finger at you but the other hand is holding a whip at-the-ready.

Slavery. That’s really what we’re talking about here.


Oh, and that’s not all from Beck:

The entire effect — if not the purpose — of a jaywalking statute is to strip the individual of that which he is born with: the principal device with which humans are able and naturally authorized to make their ways through the world.

Me? I know how to get across a street. My parents saw to that at an early age.

As usual, Beck gets right to core of the thing, and you should read every golden word.

This was his comment over at Radley’s Agitator article concerning a woman who got punched in the face by a cop over a jaywalking ticket.

John Venlet was talking about “Fort Sumters”, and I was talking about small individual actions, “candles not forest fires”.

This, folks, is what candles look like.

Also notice in the video that damn near every person in the crowd had a phonecam out. No effort to arrest the guy making this video, it would have been futile.

Imagine the woman quoting the Constitution, the law, the Declaration, Locke, Paine, Henry, Jefferson, or, hell, Beck, making a principled stand against a minor tyranny.

Now imagine everybody in that crowd with a gun on their hip, nodding their heads at every word she says and scowling at the cops.

Imagine that freedom, liberty itself, was politically correct.

Hahahaha! What a ridiculous idea! I slay myself sometimes.

Candles

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

John Venlet, he of Improved Clinch, writes of possible “First Shot Justifications” for a Fort Sumter, a group military action in defiance of the government.

What action, or further restriction of freedom, individual or otherwise, instituted by the federal government, would justify taking up arms against the United States government, crossing that line in the sand, firing the first shot?

This is a troubling thought to consider. I, for one, would prefer that taking up arms against the United States government need not be resorted to, but what will open the eyes of Americans to the fact that their freedom is under assault. What will be America’s Broken Arrow? Is there one freedom restricting action that could be instituted by the federal government that would awaken Americans to the systematic destruction of freedom taking place in America, causing Americans to rise up and say “No More?”

I’m hoping that never comes; I’m too old to survive a civil war. Instead, I’m hoping for a gradual awakening, for increasing numbers of individual resistance actions, and for increasing willingness of groups to engage in, not Fort Sumters, but simple quiet displays.

In comments at Clinch, I wrote, somewhat disjointedly,

Fort Sumter was preceded by a huge propaganda campaign, and many smaller actions, which inflamed the people of the South to support the opening shots. We are not there yet.

As noted by the Mercenary, there have already been two actions, Ruby Ridge and Waco, that might have qualified, but I think they didn’t work because the individualist right had not yet awakened. A similar action now might have very different results.

Had the Hutaree been massacred, that might have triggered it. Instead, the public reaction from the right was swift, loud, threatening, and the case against them has been mostly dropped. Five years ago, they would have disappeared without a trace.

Had Heller gone for D.C., that might have done it, or if MacDonald goes for Chicago, that might. (I know some are derisive of Heller and MacDonald, even of the SC itself — “Nobody tells me what to do.” I believe, though, that those cases are about tracking the government’s willingness to slip the leash, not about what we the people can and can’t do.)

Passive disobedience won’t yet work, I think, because it receives almost no coverage, and what little coverage there is is not encouraging. The media is not interested, is in active opposition, and is so ignorant they don’t even know what questions to ask. Nobody wants to go down unnoticed and alone.

As far as group actions go, I like the Open Carry movement, which sees opposition even in states where it’s legal. Gets attention, though, at low risk for participants.

Elsewhere, unarmed Holster Carry gatherings just see derision, but they’re few and far between. They might gain respect if they become widespread.

I believe the Tea Party movement must adopt a policy of OC or HC at public gatherings, just to get the media and the public at large to notice that we think something is wrong. People have got to get over the idea that staying quiet and being polite to the point of self-effacement no longer works. An OC Tea Party is practice, that’s all, as much or more for the Partiers as for the public.

These are small things, which I often see derided by the more committed, but the very first thing that needs to happen is for the non-committed to get accustomed to asking, politely and respectfully, to exercise their rights. Many don’t even realize they have rights that are being taken away. Should we have to ask? No, of course not. But we’re talking about folks accustomed to asking for the salt and pepper just to be polite, not because they actually need permission to season their food to taste. They’ll do no less for their rights at this stage of the fight.

However, the stagnant stink of tyranny and defeat wafting from Obama is being noticed by his followers, now. They’re beginning to notice they were lied to about exactly what kind of change they were getting. His fellow Democrats are getting nervous; see the reluctance to face town meetings, and Etheridge’s panicked battery of a student videographer. That last is evidence that simply asking polite questions, on record, is enough to provoke an ugly response. If you want a Fort Sumter, we need to see a lot more of that first.

We need small, quiet, individual actions. Lots of them. Candles, not forest fires.

The Change Wind is rising. Small gusts, fitful, weak, but so the storm begins.

I am not optimistic, but I am hopeful.