Occupy Oregon

People who study successful social change movements AND successful insurgencies know that social change can happen. Social change can happen peacefully or bloody, but it can happen. Insurgents don’t win wars, insurgents just don’t lose. Right now the “patriots” occupying a wildlife management HQ building exist in a state of quantum flux between being social change advocates and insurgents.

The only difference between the Occupy movement and the “patriots” in the BLM Wildlife Refuge HQ building is the open carrying of firearms. The best thing those guys can do for their legitimacy is to throw all their rifles in the bed of a truck and get the truck out of there. Right now all they really have is a trespassing charge that could stick.

“No more free Wacos” is Mike V’s battle cry, but Waco and Ruby Ridge were private property invaded by the Government to enforce insane firearms laws at humongous expense.

The next thing these guys need to do is get a real public spokesman, one with a law degree. One who can file for delays and injunctions and all sorts of stuff on behalf of the Hammonds that these “patriots” are supposedly supporting.

I know this takes time and money, but hell, anything worth doing is worth doing right.

And finally these guys need to get on social media. Live tweet the occupation of the Refuge HQ building. Put a human face on it, put the grievances out there.

Otherwise it’s all a waste. The Hammonds are heading back to jail. Nothing can stop that now. Getting justice doesn’t seem likely when sitting in a fixed position like a fat goose waiting for slaughter.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Occupy Oregon

  1. B says:

    Hmm, seems like a hand grenade wrapped in bacon. Sure it smells awesome but it’s got one hell of a boom going down. The worst part of this horribly, terrible idea is it plays right into O’bummers stated gun control goals 😛


  2. DW says:

    I agree with the majority of liberty minded folk that this move by the occupiers seems not well thought out and their actions may have a detrimental impact on those of us wanting to advance liberty. But my questions/concerns are about how this even came to be?

    Given what I have read about the case against the Hammond’s, how did the jury ever convict them? This is clearly a case of extreme government overreach. Do the people in that state not understand the concepts of “mens rea”, “malum in se”, liberty and the power of jury nullification? Probably not given the state of public education systems in this country.

    There is no way I would have ever voted guilty had I been on the jury. Sadly the fact that the court and the appeals court upheld this verdict confirms that the fix is in with our justice system. Serfs like us will never get a fair shake against the powers that rule us.

    So I understand the occupier’s frustrations and the desire to do something, but like you stated, they need some lessons in how to better achieve their objectives or “pick their battles”. And I still don’t understand why the Hammond’s seem so willing to roll-over and accept their unjust punishment. This is clearly a blatant example of tyranny inflicted by our government.

    Those folks at Netflix that did that “making a murderer” series should have done a series on this case. Maybe that would wake up the people to the fascist regime that is our government.

    I go to work every day amazed at how absolutely corrupt our government has become and I get sick thinking of the country I am leaving to my children. And nothing in that pile of dung running for president gives me any glimmer of hope.


    • rthtgnbs says:

      This is the Department Of Justice overall prosecutor statistics.

      $ 93 percent conviction rate
      $ 81 percent of convicted defendants sentenced to prison
      $ 47 percent of prison sentences greater than 3 years
      $ 27 percent of prison sentences greater than 5 years

      The Government knew it had a weak case, and so it did the classic “overcharge and hope for a plea deal” tactic. The Hammonds put their faith in a jury, but one thing that I have learned about justice is that you will never get a jury full of smart, logical, and wise people. President Obama was elected with a majority of votes, twice. Odds are good that half of any jury is going to be an Obama voter, or Bernie Sanders supporter. In other words, people who are inherently statist and biased towards the state.

      This is how the prosecutor could coach a mentally troubled young man to convince a majority of jurists to find the defendants guilty, and then they immediately pounced on a plea deal to get their win. They didn’t care what charge the Hammonds were found guilty on, they just needed ONE charge to stick.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s