Open letter to Eric Holder

This, from Mike Vanderboegh, is interesting. It represents one of the stated ideas behind the second amendment back in the day– Something about keeping would-be tyrants “in awe”, presenting a force beyond that of any standing army, etc.

I’m not sure what good the letter could do, beyond letting Holder and Company know that we have a fairly good, general idea of what they’re up to, that we’re not all entirely intimidated, blind, cowed, distracted and demoralized. There may be some value in that and there may not, but there it is. I’ve done similar in the past, but I don’t think I’ll be doing it again.

As for the possibility of violence; I do NOT believe that, at this point anyway, Holder and Company are the slightest bit intimidated. Not in the way the author may have intended. I believe it is likely, insofar as I understand the mentality or the occupying identity that drives them, that Holder et al are quite looking forward to violence, that they’ve been getting impatient waiting for it and can’t quite understand why we’re taking so long to get with it (and thus help them fulfill their plans).

It might be more productive to try to convince Holder & Company that they themselves are mere pawns, and that once their role is served and their usefulness expired they’ll be left in the lurch, or squashed like cockroaches, by those they currently serve, but that won’t dawn on them until it’s far too late for them. It almost never does.

And so the value in such letters or postings is, at best, that later on they’ll not be able to say they weren’t warned or didn’t have any choice. In light of THAT, maybe our efforts should include defining for such unfortunates a viable way out.

9 thoughts on “Open letter to Eric Holder

    • I think a person can still publish his observations and opinions in this country without being officially appointed, approved, licensed or elected to do so. Or would you be happier reading nothing but what comes from an official “department of communications”?

      As far as who he may “represent”, that’s up to the individual reader. For myself; in don’t do the cult-of-personality game. No one represents me but me, but anyone may represent an idea, a concept or a principle as those things can be universal. No one owns them. Many people may converge upon the same principle quite independently as well, just as we all can recognize the force of gravity.

      You are free to take from it what you will, or dismiss all of it out of hand. Obviously you couldn’t ignore it, though, as you had to comment on it. Now you’ll have to pick though it more carefully, I guess, to see of you can connect any of the dots and understand it from the perspective of someone who wants to live free in a more just and rational society.

    • Of course, the prerequisites that would allow the use of the Insureection Acts would not be met by people fighting for enumerated Constitutional rights.

      It is ONLY valid if:

      “… such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy…so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

      “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”
      United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (pretty much THE case that established SCOTUS as the final arbiter of Constitutionality – toss THIS decision as “outdated”, and EVERY SCOTUS decision on Constitutionality – including the ENTIRITY of civil rights law – goes away).

      “That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated.”

      “If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on… This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual… That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction.”

      “It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

      “Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

  1. I think he speaks for a lot of people. I certainly consider him one hell of a patriot. He says good things, and he says them very eloquently indeed.

    • By the way, what prompted that comment? His letter is signed by him personally. It does not look like he’s trying to claim he’s speaking for anyone other than himself. So why, other than fear of what he stands for, are you getting onto that “who elected him anyway” thing? He’s not a collectivist, a person who falsely claims to act for a collective that never elected him and may not even exist.

  2. lyle:

    after having read vanderboegh’s letter, i am constrained to respectfully disagree with you.

    to the extent obama and his ideologues read anything, or to the extent any expression will alter their views or alter their course, it is important such views be stated. for you. for us. and, if nothing more than to let them know that we are here.

    john jay
    136 s.e. 8th avenue
    milton freewater, oregon 97862

    • “to the extent obama and his ideologues read anything, or to the extent any expression will alter their views or alter their course, it is important such views be stated. for you. for us. and, if nothing more than to let them know that we are here.”

      John; I believe that that is a decent summary, or reiteration, of what I said, so I don’t know where you disagree.

      Oh and they know that we are here, in a general sense at least, which is why they’re full of hatred. Still; it is our duty to document, I suppose.

  3. The Obamadministration is counting on something happening this summer. I expect a case of someone defending themselves against a group of vibrant inner city youths to be turned into Zimmerman-squared, with a side serving of “voter suppression” for expecting only those legally permitted to vote be allowed to vote and a hefty serving of Koch-hatred and “angry white male” hatred.

Comments are closed.