Burns Chronicles No 6 – Is There a Peaceful Solution?

Burns Chronicles No 6

Is There a Peaceful Solution?


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 09, 2016

I have heard professed patriots, such as Melvin Lee (especially, beginning at the 19:27 mark), on behalf of Pacific Patriot Network (PPN), claiming that what was accomplished by Ammon Bundy and others was wrong, that there is a peaceful way to achieve what they were trying to achieve. When what Ammon did is compared with our own history, they argue that there was no Constitution then, but there is one now, and we must abide by it.

So, let’s set the record straight by starting with the Constitution. There was an English Constitution, however, it was a compilation of acts and court decisions, beginning with the Magna Carta, and insuring the “Rights of Englishmen”. It was the Crown’s refusal to recognize the rights of the colonists, as they were enjoyed in England that led to the Revolution.

Our Constitution is written in a single document, with amendments in addition to the original. However, the Supreme Court will not pass on the constitutionality of a matter before it “unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case”. In other words, only as a last resort. This was explained to the country in a 1936 Supreme Court decision, Ashwander v. T.V.A.

Lee also claims that there is a peaceful solution, suggesting demonstrating, petitioning politicians, etc. Well, those are fine words; however, they are nothing more than words. But, I don’t want you to take my word for it. I think that the best source would be a person, Representative Greg Walden, who had firsthand knowledge of the abuse by the administrative agencies, even though an act of the Congress was passed to set some rigid rules against such abuse. If our lawmakers pass a law and the agencies ignore, or circumvent, the law, perhaps you can explain to me just how a peaceful resolution can be achieved. Listen to the entirety of his Speech on the Floor of the House of Representatives (Published January 8, 2016 – 24 minutes).

So, what can we do to change things, peacefully? To get government back to being the servant rather than the master? I have read the OathKeepers post where they are trying to get Ammon and his people to leave. They suggest that a “lateral move” to another, friendly, county, would solve the problem. Well, it surely would have gotten them off the Refuge. And, we heard both the Sheriff and the FBI constantly touting that they were seeking a “peaceful resolution”, but, then, we have the aerial footage showing just how that turned out for LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Bundy, and the others who are currently facing 6 years of “peaceful” solitude.

Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th. So, words, whether from the feds, law enforcement, or professed patriots, mean nothing. Only actions speak loud enough to generate the attention, and the support of other freedom loving Americans. Consider, too, that we have passed the point of even thinking that words, unless backed up by the threat of defensive force, are worth any more than the words of those who are destroying our country, and those who seem to, under the guise of “patriotism”, support those deceptive words.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Burns Chronicles No 6 – Is There a Peaceful Solution?”

  1. tim guiney says:

    Hear! Hear! Gary

  2. Kyle says:

    Melvin Lee appears to be a reformist, that is, an advocate for working inside of the system in order to change in it from within. I say that because he mentioned that the government police are okay (despite being unconstitutional) and that the government courts are not corrupt, so he just doesn’t like the BLM as an administrative agency; he implied that American patriots should use the police and the courts to stop the BLM.

    I don’t know what country he’s living in, but last time I checked, America is a police state, especially when you look at civil asset forfeiture as well as how “nuisance abatement” is being used by the government to run homesteaders off their own land. I ask anyone, how many people have been kept out of prison by the use of jury nullification versus those who have been convicted of committing “victimless crimes”? How many lawsuits have been successful in curbing the growth of government power? When was the last time running for public office or electoral voting shrank the raw exercise of political power?

    Mr. Lee may want to beg those who falsely imagine themselves to be our rulers for his freedom, but as for me, I want to live without rulers.

  3. NavyJack says:

    “Surely, had Ammon done so, they would have gone directly into the hands of the feds, or ended up being murdered, as happened to LaVoy Finicum on the 26th.” – Baloney.

    I am not going to relay strategies for exfiltration on your blog, but I assure your that Ammon and LaVoy would have been in good hands with experienced operators that would not have drove a tight convoy up a lonesome road without forward observers and serious recon.

    I agree with the much of the remainder of your article, but remember we need people like LaVoy alive a lot more than we need martyrs. Putting hundreds of patriots on an X against FedGov is a fools game. We must be smart. We must be professional. We need to realize that FedGov propaganda is their strength. Unwinding that propaganda at every opportunity is our mission. We also need to remember that the vast majority of FedGov personnel DO NOT want to kill patriots. FedGov has a VERY limited supply of operators willing to kill patriots. Once they’re gone, they’re gone.

    Some excellent ideas here:

    • ghunt says:

      Sheriff Ward had offered to escort them, safely, to the county line. So, what would have happened if he had?
      The government created an air of complacency. That led to the attitude that they could act freely. Then the elaborate trap was sprung, and LaVoy was killed.
      Perhaps radio communications would have helped, but they were not a military mission, and they hose to act like free Americans, rather than with fear.
      Everybody has a solution, though thy keep it close to their chest. However, that battle is not over. We hold the ground. What do you suppose should be done, now?
      There is always an “X” during war. Those that fear the “X” tend toward keyboards. Those who hold the ground have snipers looking down from the ridge, but they stand their ground.
      I hold that my article is accurate, as the show of force by the feds was extreme. When someone decided to flee to the Sheriff, believing, as he should, that the feds have no jurisdiction and seeking the protection of Sheriff Palmer, faced a roadblock that was set up to create a kill zone, not for those who had never threatened anyone.
      They stood up, and are critiqued by those who did not. Four now hold the ground, while others fled even after saying that they would stay.
      I consider the associations and influence of those that fled. And, there will be more brought to light about the influence of those who assume command, from a distance.

      • NavyJack says:

        I did not take issue with the majority of your article. Actually, just the one statement. As for the “X” during war concept, this is as untenable today as it was for George Washington during the revolution. All battles between the British and the colonies were lost by Washington until he realized that he did not have a force suitable for placement on the “X”. Today is no different. After the assault on Trenton (which Washington ran as an insurgent attack vice a let’s all stand on the “X” moment) the Colonial Army learned how to win. They learned that standing on the “X” against a vastly superior army was a fools game. The new “hit and run” strategy caused the enemy forces to spread across a large geographic area and expend massive resources to defend their supply lines. This approach weakened the enemy to a point where they could ultimately be defeated. To be successful, today’s patriots must not listen to those that insist on repeating mistakes from the past.

        In order to lay claim that “we hold the ground” you must be able to control at least one way into an out of the ground your claiming. The alternative is that you are surrounded. In the current situation the “we” control zip. There is exactly a 0% probability that the cordon erected by the FBI can be broken to do anything for the remaining personnel at the refuge. They should have all left when the vastly more experienced leadership from the PPN told them it was time to go.

        • ghunt says:

          True, during Washington’s time, the tactics didn’t support ground held, as the armies, for the most part, were quite substantial.
          Lets jump to WWI, WWII, and Vietnam, where, often, a position was held and relief sent, saving the day.
          Thinking out of the box (especially the sandbox) is important. And, what is anticipated, if all comes together, is a substantially larger force on our side than on theirs, reclaiming and maintaining a supply corridor to the HCRC, and holding the ground. Anticipating that this would create a dilemma, forcing the government to negotiate, not necessarily on their terms, resulting in what can be turned into a victory.

  4. […] a previous article, “Is There a Peaceful Solution?“, I included a link to a video. Based upon a number of comments, it appears that many decided […]

  5. […] (OMD) Burns Chronicles No. 4: Stand Up; Stand Down Burns Chronicles No. 5: The Burns Community Burns Chronicles No. 6: Is There a Peaceful Solution? Burns Chronicles No. 7: What is Brandon Curtiss? Burns Chronicles No. 8: Active Patriots v. Passive […]

Leave a Reply