The first requires a flawless personality, a messiah and leader. The second requires a tremendous amount of bold initiative, personal conviction and fortitude from everyone who believes in freedom and liberty.
Two weeks after the first charge I was arrested again at a Liberty Bell call while observing and taking notes on a warrantless search. We can all see that our government is sliding into tyranny, a police state, where those who can seize the political power are privileged to force all others to conform and comply. We must not strive to wield this privilege for ourselves but instead seek liberty for all.
It is intimidating to not have a government that protects but a system that aggresses. However, I will continue to be an advocate for the supremacy of individual rights, uncompromising adherence to the principles of human dignity and freedom, volunteerism and the absence of coercive force. I will not stop speaking freedom in the face of tyranny, ever. For to do that, is to become a slave on the inside.
We are all slaves on the outside already. Think about it. You can’t do a thing without written permission from the system. We all ask permission before we drive, get married, do business, travel, teach our own kids at home, fly a plane, buy a gun, build a garage, sell a car, keep our money ... on and on it goes. We don’t have freedom. We have permission.
The powers that be are forcibly taking over entire industries: financial, auto, medical, insurance, housing. The Constitution is stone cold dead and every day we see them situating themselves to do bad things to large numbers of people. The only thing keeping this “tinkernomics” house of cards together is the never-ending string of promises that can’t be kept coming from the power holders. “One more law and one more election,” they say, but the goods are never delivered.
These are troubled times for sure. It is scary to stand up and live free, and it will cost anyone who does so dearly. Believe me, I know. But to sit quietly by as the tentacles of oppression wrap you in the darkness isn’t exactly easy or cheap either. Freedom cannot be procured for you, it must be procured by you. If the powers that be think they can snuf out the longing for liberty and justice in our hearts, if they think they can scare everyone into subjection by attacking those who stand up first, they are wrong.
Stand with me or stand without me, but the time is now. Who will you be? What is in your heart? Is not the truth of liberty and law yours to carry alone if you must? Is not the concept of inviolable individual rights, and government to protect those rights rather than trespass them, an idea that belongs chiefly to the individual and not groups?
I will stay in the fight and so must you. We owe it to our children, to ourselves and to the pages of history. Let us not be remembered as an age of men that bowed the knee to authoritarianism. Let us give our sons and daughters a better inheritance than despotism. We must live with courage and die with peace. Liberty will always win because tyranny self-destructs. Hold fast, friends, hold fast. Our very humanness hangs in the balance.
Schaeffer Cox of Fairbanks is leader of the local Second Amendment Task Force and commander of the Alaska Peacemakers Militia.
I would value your opinion (even if it differs from mine) much more if you didn't resort to tactics like ranting and name-calling. I also value opinions more when they have sensible ideas and do not over-generalize. Your conspiracy theories on 9/11 are bad enough without calling conservatives (in general) idiots and making comments like "Can you see Russia too?" By the way.. Tina Fey, a liberal, said that. Palin never said that. It was an SNL skit. Should I call you a moron for this oversight?
Back to the article itself and the original topic. Schaeffer does not make good decisions. His heart is in the right place, but he needs to start thinking things through before he acts. While I don't agree with everything he says, I do agree that the government is getting too big and tramping on state rights. I believe in the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole). I believe in the Contitution.
Instead of griping, find ways to fix. But do it respectfully.
You and I have different ideas of conservative I guess. I don't see Bush as an ideal example of a conservative. I know that many Americans do see it that way, but I look to the founding fathers of our nation as an example of conservatives. They had virtue and integrity and honesty. They worked for peanuts and sacrificed everything for this nation.
The massacres that occured during the beginning of America against the native people are horrible. I myself have some native ancestors. There is no excuse for the slaughter and pain they caused to the original citizens of this land. I can't change that part or go back in the past. I can do something now though, with where we're at today.
9/11 is a mystery in some ways. Everyone has a different story on it. I did watch a documentary about the profits made from that war to the Bush/Cheny administration and several large corporations. To me, that is the furthest thing from real conservative America.
The true conservative in my opinion is someone who has proven themselves worthy to serve the people in politics. Someone who has sacrificed themselve's in some way, or actually in many ways, for the cause of protecting American's rights and liberties, and just protecting America period. Someone like Washington who was a soldier and fought along side his people. A real conservative is ethical and caring, someone we can trust. Also they should have intelligence and be able to work with others to form decisions based upon the good of the citizens. I believe they should be willing to not get paid well. This way they serve America from love of our land and not money or greed.
This may sound like some sort of fantasy, but this is the way the USA started. A good read is The 5000 Year Leap.
A good leader is elected by the people because they trust him or her and they have a track record of dependability. They did not obtain the position by family ties, but by earning it. Also, they should believe in the foundation of God and hopefully Jesus and have the fruits to back that up.
Ties to large corporations and other profiting agencies which corrupt politicians are wrong. That is how America sees a conservative, but that's not correct. Conservative and corruption are opposites, or at least they should be.
I believe in Jesus and I am a conservative and I believe in the way America was originally established and in the Bill of Rights which states that we should have militias.
I don't see how that means that I am responsible for 9/11. The war issue is a tough one for me personally. Our soil was attacked and we retaliated. Some say that we're only there for the oil. The soldiers that are actually there say that we're doing the right thing. My cousin Ricky is there, and has been since it started. He keeps having to go back. But he wants to be there. He believes in what he's doing. How can I argue with that?
America was founded on Christianity. I know that many want to forget that for some reason, but it was. God was honored by most of our founding fathers. I feel like being a person who stands for the freedom of America is something that Jesus wants. Our original government, before this socialist movement, was ethical and fair. I know that there is some corruption, but the way it's put together with all the check and balances and the vote of the people to avoid a tyranny situation is to me a very Godly way to govern a land.
I don't know what exactly happened with Schaeffer and his wife, and honestly, I don't believe it's any of my business; but I am proud of him for having a malitia. It's constitutional and healthy for our country to have them.
You have anger towards conservatives. I hope this gives you a different perspective.
Yes, it is not our place to judge and I'm not judging Cox; however, I can come to a conclusion with the information I am provided and make a decision as to what I believe happened. I am not a juror, attorney, LEO, or judge for this case so presumed innocence is not mandated for my opinion as to what happened. He will not receive jail time for my opinion.
This does not, through the definition of the charge in of itself, determine the absolute that Cox choked or punched his wife. A common phenomena of spousal contact after a charge in of itself also does not determine that absolute. If they did, always and absolutely, there would be no logical reason to have any due process in this matter in the first place. You are doing exactly that when claiming things as absolutes.
As for reasons why the charges were reduced, I will refer to previous DNM articles where DA Gray stated they were reduced because the victim was being non-cooperative. Additionally, there was an article written shortly after Cox's arrest that said he had violated his conditions of release by contacting the victim. Granted, this is only info provided by DNM, but it fits a pattern of DV victim and perpetrator behavior. It is reasonable to come to the conclusion, if the DNM reporting was accurate, that Cox contacted the victim in order to coerce her to recant her story, , which could have led to charges of Witness Tampering; which would be difficult to prove with a non-cooperative victim - and hence a quick plea deal.
Do I find his writing and speech prothlesizing ? yes. I can understand why others would think he is an egotistical boob, but I just think, from what little known of him, that he's an odd bird - not good or bad, just odd. Do I think he's over- reactionary and his giving rank and uniforms to his members is silly , yeah . Do I think he should have followed through with his serious claim against authorities (and family)in the case that he is telling the truth ? Absolutely, but I don't know what's on his plate. I think it was a big mistake on his part if he considered his group a priority above doing so. Do I think he should have immediately come clean and stepped down from his position if he is actually guilty ? Absolutely. Do I find it odd that the D.A. 'allowed' him to work down to a plea of reckless endangerment from domestic violence if there were no circumstances we were not privy to ? Yes, from my understanding with domestic violence charges, this is a rather unique occurrence and it makes me wonder if there's not more to this story. Does this reduction appear to conflict directly with his charge that authorities are targeting him and there is some adversarial relationship going on between them ? I think it does, which makes things more odd.
Can I say that, like my presumption of innocence, that one's presumption of guilt is a legal one in this case? Yes I can.
I don't believe or disbelieve that Cox did what his wife or whoever claimed he did. Some people tell the truth all the time, some of the time or not at all. Some people don't know what the truth is or don't use it for a myriad of reasons, some all or none of time. Sometimes those people are husbands, wives , cops, etc. and sometimes they are not.
In this case some are saying one thing and another is saying something else AND I was not there. And although strangulation fits the definition of reckless endangerment, so too does many other things under the sun that I was also not there for.
I am in no way challenging your right to believe anything you want to believe. I am challenging anyone to claim an absolute in this case because I know as fact one is not privy to it. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but you owe it to Cox as you owe it to anyone.
Even if Cox himself, his wife and authorities all state that he strangled his wife, there is still no establishment of an absolute that he strangled his wife.
So believe away , but don't be playing God as you place yourself above thee. That makes you a danger to others you have placed beneath you without warrant. The likes of curmudgeon have done enough of that to go around for everyone.
I've been going back and forth over whether I should continue this discussion. But, here goes.
I am very sorry that your personal history and that of close friends and family was so violent. It's a crappy way to grow up, but you are apparently among the majority of kids who do not perpetuate that behavior into their own adult lives.
Your comment shows a lot of ambivalence, in that you acknowledge that you believe Schaeffer did what his wife claimed he did, but consider him "innocent" because the most serious charges against him were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court.
The "presumption of innocence" is a legal presumption, not a factual one. I think that we as citizens are free to come to judgments based on common sense, even if jurors are held to a different standard.
Schaeffer was not convicted of attempted murder or felony assault, but he was convicted (by his GUILTY plea) of "Reckless Endangerment," which is defined in Alaska law as follows:
"A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person."
A guilty plea requires the showing of a factual basis before the judge can accept it. The factual basis is that he engaged in "conduct," that he was "reckless," that the conduct created a "substantial risk" that another person would suffer "serious physical injury."
Strangulation fits that definition perfectly,
You challenged my right to respond to Mr. Schaeffer's article based on my belief that he is a domestic violence offender. I suggest that this has been sufficiently established by his guilty plea, even though the DA's office let him package his conduct into a law that carries much less serious consequences than the charges referred to the DA by the Troopers.
If we still aren't any closer to common ground, then hopefully we can just agree to disagree.
While it is only rational to deduce from the the evidence at hand an understanding of the probability of guilt, its a whole other animal to characterize someone as being something absolutely where no absolute is evident. It is dishonesty in it's most dangerous form.
You have no right to state as fact that someone is this or that or done this or that unless you know as fact that's true. You do not. Curmudgeon does not. I do not.
Not only that, it is of no coincidence that Curmudgeon has given attributes of social irresponsibility with particular instances of irresponsibility that has no evidence of Cox's endorsement. Once one places attributes to an other's character, one finds placing additional negative attributes quite convenient to inflict damage on another. It is worse than playing Dr. Frankenstein. it is playing Frankenstien to create a "monster" for the sole purpose of inflicting pain upon it. This is no different than me claiming as absolute fact that you are a whore and Curmudgeon is a child molester. all I have to do is say you are and he is to give impression of absolute fact.
I don't deny that Cox did what what he is accused of doing, but I do live up to my responsibility as an American and a human to consider him innocent at least until a jury says otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no jury found him guilty of what Curmudgeon and others have stated as being fact.
So yeah, Curmudgeon. I'm an enabler to giving this consideration through my responsibility. Your attribution of my character as one in denial is quite erroneous. i never denied a thing. You have , though, haven't you? Give the attribution-thing a rest. You are coming off as a scornful child bent on damage.
It is a pity that such a simple premise of human responsibility has to be explained to you folks. You really should be ashamed. I have the audacity of hope you will be when the opportunity arises for reflection.