TexasCHLforum.com

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot. ... on-of.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Eloquent piece.

Love it!

Eloquent? Maybe. But what the heck is he talking about? What is the unamed threat ib somme unsourced letter ?

He blames Holder for the famous memo about Veterans, Right wingers and interna terrorist. But that came from Homeland Security and as far as I know didn't have anything to do the Attorny Generals office.

We hold the other side accountable to the facts.

Liberty wrote:Eloquent? Maybe. But what the heck is he talking about? What is the unamed threat ib somme unsourced letter ?

He blames Holder for the famous memo about Veterans, Right wingers and interna terrorist. But that came from Homeland Security and as far as I know didn't have anything to do the Attorny Generals office.

We hold the other side accountable to the facts.

He didn't blame Holder - read it again. Here's what he said:

the latest Janet has already declared most of the rest of us, including veterans, "domestic terrorists" anyway.

He directly referred to Janet Napolitano here, as a reference to the previous "Janet", the infamous Janet Reno.

James

extremist wrote:

Liberty wrote:Eloquent? Maybe. But what the heck is he talking about? What is the unamed threat ib somme unsourced letter ?

He blames Holder for the famous memo about Veterans, Right wingers and interna terrorist. But that came from Homeland Security and as far as I know didn't have anything to do the Attorny Generals office.

We hold the other side accountable to the facts.

He didn't blame Holder - read it again. Here's what he said:

the latest Janet has already declared most of the rest of us, including veterans, "domestic terrorists" anyway.

He directly referred to Janet Napolitano here, as a reference to the previous "Janet", the infamous Janet Reno.

James

I see that now but the whole thing is pretty incomprehensible to me.
What letter is he talking about?
Why is he so angry. Whats with Addressing Holder by his firstname? Is calling him by his first name supposed to be less respectful? I don't doubt the guy is legitimatly ticked off, but his reasons are not exactly clear.

I have an feeling that I would be in complete agreement with this guy if I could only understand what he is getting at.

I'm sorry, to me, his message is quite clear and unambiguous.

Perhaps a good nights rest and re-reading it tomorrow will unveil it's clear meaning

James

"I see that now but the whole thing is pretty incomprehensible to me. What letter is he talking about? Why is he so angry. Whats with Addressing Holder by his firstname? Is calling him by his first name supposed to be less respectful?"

MBV: In re calling him Eric: Yes, it IS disrespectful. It is supposed to be. He is NOT the most exalted from on-high. I explain why I do it. Please reread the first paragraph of the letter, s-l-o-w-l-y.

"I don't doubt the guy is legitimatly ticked off, but his reasons are not exactly clear. I have an feeling that I would be in complete agreement with this guy if I could only understand what he is getting at."

MBV: Let me try again for you (because Holder nows EXACTLY who and what I am talking about). A report came to me from somebody in the DOJ bureaucracy that Holder, or someone claiming to speak for Holder, was threatening someone who has long been a thorn in the ATF's legal side. NOT a criminal, just an irritant.

I passed this on to another member of the bureaucracy. He (she) indicated that the "outer ring" of decision makers were appalled and quite nervous about the fact that the Clintonistas had returned, learning nothing. They are, if I may borrow their phrase, "clueless children who, having dug up an atomic bomb with their little toy shovels, are banging on it with their tiny ball peen hammers, without a clue of the titanic social forces they are playing with."

Even the ones who understand what they are doing believe that they can get away with it because having caused one Waco without reprisal, they can get away with another. In other words, they can set the bomb off and take care of their opponents without damage to themselves.

There WAS a threat from DOJ. It WAS directed at someone specific, someone who would be recognized by most Second Amendment activists. My letter is designed to put the Obamanoids (and especially the ex-Clintonistas like Holder among them) on notice that the cold war we played with the in 90s is back on. (Reference: See Prof. Robert Churchill's book, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face, University of Michigan Press, 2009.)

So, I wrote the letter and well-informed Second Amendment activists (and memebrs of the permanent bureaucracy who wish to live long enough to draw their pensions without starting a civil war) understand it without explanation or explication.

(Reference: See Bill Clinton's change of the rules of engagement of US forces to include the politicians, intelligentsia and media of his opponents the Serbs in 1999.)

To recap.

There was a threat from DOJ about someone real who I decline to name.

I passed this on to someone in the permanent bureaucracy, who asked me to explicate the obvious back to Holder. This I did.

If you are confused it is because you have not paid enough attention to the history of your own country since 1993. THAT is not my fault.

Mike Vanderboegh

Too long. The point is lost on me too.

Dutchman6 wrote:"I see that now but the whole thing is pretty incomprehensible to me. What letter is he talking about? Why is he so angry. Whats with Addressing Holder by his firstname? Is calling him by his first name supposed to be less respectful?"

MBV: In re calling him Eric: Yes, it IS disrespectful. It is supposed to be. He is NOT the most exalted from on-high. I explain why I do it. Please reread the first paragraph of the letter, s-l-o-w-l-y.

"I don't doubt the guy is legitimatly ticked off, but his reasons are not exactly clear. I have an feeling that I would be in complete agreement with this guy if I could only understand what he is getting at."

MBV: Let me try again for you (because Holder nows EXACTLY who and what I am talking about). A report came to me from somebody in the DOJ bureaucracy that Holder, or someone claiming to speak for Holder, was threatening someone who has long been a thorn in the ATF's legal side. NOT a criminal, just an irritant.

I passed this on to another member of the bureaucracy. He (she) indicated that the "outer ring" of decision makers were appalled and quite nervous about the fact that the Clintonistas had returned, learning nothing. They are, if I may borrow their phrase, "clueless children who, having dug up an atomic bomb with their little toy shovels, are banging on it with their tiny ball peen hammers, without a clue of the titanic social forces they are playing with."

Even the ones who understand what they are doing believe that they can get away with it because having caused one Waco without reprisal, they can get away with another. In other words, they can set the bomb off and take care of their opponents without damage to themselves.

There WAS a threat from DOJ. It WAS directed at someone specific, someone who would be recognized by most Second Amendment activists. My letter is designed to put the Obamanoids (and especially the ex-Clintonistas like Holder among them) on notice that the cold war we played with the in 90s is back on. (Reference: See Prof. Robert Churchill's book, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face, University of Michigan Press, 2009.)

So, I wrote the letter and well-informed Second Amendment activists (and memebrs of the permanent bureaucracy who wish to live long enough to draw their pensions without starting a civil war) understand it without explanation or explication.

(Reference: See Bill Clinton's change of the rules of engagement of US forces to include the politicians, intelligentsia and media of his opponents the Serbs in 1999.)

To recap.

There was a threat from DOJ about someone real who I decline to name.

I passed this on to someone in the permanent bureaucracy, who asked me to explicate the obvious back to Holder. This I did.

If you are confused it is because you have not paid enough attention to the history of your own country since 1993. THAT is not my fault.

Mike Vanderboegh

I was a little confused by your use of the first name. If I want disrespect someone I typically use the last name without title. I call those whom I'm close by their first name. Different cultures and perhaps brought up in different times.

While I understand the times and happenings since 1993 pretty well, I was confused about the unnamed threats to the unnamed persons. Without understanding the threat or knowing anything about the person there is little context, surely you can understand my confusion. I was asking if someone could explain it to me because I was really interested in what the author was trying to communicate. Apparently as I understand it the post was an open letter to Holder. Even that wasn't so clear to me initially.

Apparently you offer threats about some other threats of which none of us are privy.
I think I'm begining to understand.

"Apparently you offer threats about some other threats of which none of us are privy.
I think I'm begining to understand."

Not threats on my part. Just pointing out the obvious, predictable reactions. Sort of a primer in societal physics.

Dutchman6 wrote:"I see that now but the whole thing is pretty incomprehensible to me. What letter is he talking about? Why is he so angry. Whats with Addressing Holder by his firstname? Is calling him by his first name supposed to be less respectful?"

MBV: In re calling him Eric: Yes, it IS disrespectful. It is supposed to be. He is NOT the most exalted from on-high. I explain why I do it. Please reread the first paragraph of the letter, s-l-o-w-l-y.

"I don't doubt the guy is legitimatly ticked off, but his reasons are not exactly clear. I have an feeling that I would be in complete agreement with this guy if I could only understand what he is getting at."

MBV: Let me try again for you (because Holder nows EXACTLY who and what I am talking about). A report came to me from somebody in the DOJ bureaucracy that Holder, or someone claiming to speak for Holder, was threatening someone who has long been a thorn in the ATF's legal side. NOT a criminal, just an irritant.

I passed this on to another member of the bureaucracy. He (she) indicated that the "outer ring" of decision makers were appalled and quite nervous about the fact that the Clintonistas had returned, learning nothing. They are, if I may borrow their phrase, "clueless children who, having dug up an atomic bomb with their little toy shovels, are banging on it with their tiny ball peen hammers, without a clue of the titanic social forces they are playing with."

Even the ones who understand what they are doing believe that they can get away with it because having caused one Waco without reprisal, they can get away with another. In other words, they can set the bomb off and take care of their opponents without damage to themselves.

There WAS a threat from DOJ. It WAS directed at someone specific, someone who would be recognized by most Second Amendment activists. My letter is designed to put the Obamanoids (and especially the ex-Clintonistas like Holder among them) on notice that the cold war we played with the in 90s is back on. (Reference: See Prof. Robert Churchill's book, To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face, University of Michigan Press, 2009.)

So, I wrote the letter and well-informed Second Amendment activists (and memebrs of the permanent bureaucracy who wish to live long enough to draw their pensions without starting a civil war) understand it without explanation or explication.

(Reference: See Bill Clinton's change of the rules of engagement of US forces to include the politicians, intelligentsia and media of his opponents the Serbs in 1999.)

To recap.

There was a threat from DOJ about someone real who I decline to name.

I passed this on to someone in the permanent bureaucracy, who asked me to explicate the obvious back to Holder. This I did.

If you are confused it is because you have not paid enough attention to the history of your own country since 1993. THAT is not my fault.

Mike Vanderboegh

There is a novel approach. Join a board full of people most likely to agree with your philosophy and start off by insulting us.

Welcome to the forum.

KRM45 wrote:Too long. The point is lost on me too.

He's warning Eric Holder against doing something. He doesn't say what exactly. He hints that people will start killing federal agents if Eric Holder or his agents don't heed the warning.

I couldn't read the entire article, as I lost interest.

You can skip it unless you're a federal agent or plan to help kill federal agents.