Is the government really "us"?

I guess the naive is still within me. Even with the knowledge of this government's dastardly treatment of Randy Weaver and his family and its extermination of the Waco religious sect, I still puzzled over the arrest of the members of the Hutaree militia. What possible case could be made, I wondered, of the expression of words, unaccompanied by deeds? How is it possible that these citizens would not be granted bail, at least, to await the judgment of the court? Are we really to believe that these eccentrics are too "dangerous" to return to their homes for this interim period?

And then I remembered another case, that of the "dangerous" Alex Curtis, who, for several months in 2000, was denied bail, and then spent three years in jail for nothing more than a series of harmless pranks. There should be little doubt that, when it comes to the targeted enemies of our government, no matter which presidential administration rules, anything can be contrived.

On May 1, President Barack Hussein Obama, in his commencement speech to graduates of the University of Michigan, berated Americans who persist in railing against government. Government should not be looked upon as a "menacing entity," he told his audience, and explained that those who fulminate against it have the effect of comparing it to "authoritarian, even murderous regimes." Obama claimed that the citizenry should not be so critical, since the government is "us."

So, it's "us" who murdered Randy Weaver's son and then his wife, as she stood in that doorway holding her baby. And it's "us" who, after an inhumane 50-day siege, murdered that little band of believers in Waco. And it's "us" who currently hand out 10-year prison sentences to youth who dare burn a cross on a lawn.

Is it also "us," as jack-booted swat teams, kick down doors in mistaken raids on the homes of innocent citizens? Is it "us" who allow an alien power, via its lobbyists and devotees, to set this country's foreign policy, that results in the unnecessary slaughter of American soldiers?

Do most of the vociferous protesters against government say there should be no government at all? Of course they don't. Even the Tea Party crazies and their ilk have never had any problem with the existence of government. In fact, they generally have no complaints about punitive treatment of citizens at the hands of federal, state or municipal governments. Most of the Partiers typically live by the "where there's smoke, there's fire" rule.

Think back to those horrendous days of Randy Weaver's troubles in the woods, and the later vile assaults on the Davidians at Waco. Throughout the harassment of each of these unfortunate victims, no right wing talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh and, here in New York, Bob Grant, could be roused by callers to add their influential voices to the protests against the atrocities being perpetrated by the God-almighty government. If anything, both of these fraudulent "constitutionalist" radio blabbers made it clear that the Waco "kooks" deserved what they got, for resisting government intervention. After all, if you are determined not to follow the rules, you should be prepared to be kicked around.

And now we have the Hutaree militia. Long-time government observer William Norman Grigg writes below about a Judge who probably possesses a memory of past injustices, and considers it her duty not to allow a repeat on her watch. (If one says, "Some day, I sure would like to get rid of that Sheriff Jones," is that the same as plotting to get rid of Jones?)

In The Hutaree Case Falls Apart, Grigg offers an update. Below are excerpts:
• • •
Federal District Judge Victoria Roberts has ruled that the nine members of the so-called Hutaree Militia accused of plotting to wage war against the Regime can be released on bail. Prosecutors had argued that bail should be denied because the group posed a severe danger to public safety.

The Hutaree group is accused of “seditious conspiracy” — specifically, plotting to murder a law enforcement officer and then follow up with opportunistic attacks on other LEOs who would attend the funeral. This would supposedly precipitate a wide-scale revolt.

Conversations discussing that scenario were reported by a federal informant who infiltrated the group and thoughtfully offered to teach them how to make improvised explosive devices. While federal prosecutors have provided ample evidence that members of the Hutaree are passionately anti-government — what decent person isn’t? — they haven’t been able to demonstrate that the group did anything more than engage in survivalist training and indulge in apocalyptic rhetoric. ...

Judge Roberts didn’t find the government’s case compelling.
“Discussions about killing local law enforcement officers — and even discussions about killing members of the judicial branch of government — do not translate to conspiring to overthrow, or levy war against, the United States government,” she wrote, ordering that the Hutaree suspects be released on bail.

Since the federal case against the Hutaree rests entirely on what was said by the suspects, rather than anything specific that was done by them, it’s difficult to see what’s left of it.

Read entire article here.

See also:

The Myth of the Menacing Militias, by Jesse Walker, Reason magazine