Note: The complete transcript for this meeting is not yet available. In the interim, specific statements made at this meeting will be posted on this site and answered by Neil and Cindy Girrard. Excerpts from the transcript are in normal type - comments in response by Neil and Cindy Girrard are in blue.
Smith: I did make a statement that that property would look better if it were burned. It was truth. It was a very truthful statement, in my opinion. It was very polite. There was no rancor. There was nothing else. I made a simple statement of fact in my brain. And I thought back of it since we’ve had three or four months of give and take and thought, fifty years ago, I was overseas, ten thousand miles from home, watching a number of cities get burned up by a bunch of protestors [garbled] but they had the right to say anything they wanted. They were in a capital building, all over the United States, saying a whole lot of worse things, burning that flag. And so I said a truthful statement in my mind, maybe inappropriately, maybe even tacky, but it was truthful. And it was not ugly. It was just a truthful statement. And I thought, it’s a sad day that we have morphed to “1984,” George Orwell, so that now, political correct people take a statement and make it terrible. It’s not terrible. It might have been tacky and it was probably inappropriate but that’s it. It’s not worth shooting the messenger. Thank you.
Confusion, delusion and sick thinking with a deceptive performance. Let’s break it out one line at a time.
Smith: I did make a statement that that property would look better if it were burned.
There is no remorse for having threatened us with having our house burned down. What was attitude in January 2018 (“I wanted it burned down myself but it still exists as is.”) and what was threat in May (“I said it would look much better if it was burned and I believe in freedom of speech. And that’s it.”) is now licensed. Now Smith has the county’s approval to make more threats of arson. Even though Smith should have been slapped down for having said this about anyone’s house, he gets to retain his position and now can think of himself as the county’s messenger to deliver more threats.
Smith: It was truth. It was a very truthful statement, in my opinion.
This is just Smith’s opinion. Calling it a truth is merely a lie.
Smith: It was very polite. There was no rancor. There was nothing else. I made a simple statement of fact in my brain.
If Smith can make such a value judgment about burning our home down with politeness, without rancor and in the sick belief that this is only a simple fact, then Smith is delusional and needs psychiatric help and not enablement and entitlement from the county. There is no thought about our lives or the lives of our children – all that matters to Smith is the all-important view a tourist has from the road, the enforcement of a law he believes is right and good (since it favors him and he is able to violate it as he wishes.) This calmness is indicative of some really deep problems in Smith’s brain.
Smith: And I thought back of it since we’ve had three or four months of give and take and thought, fifty years ago, I was overseas, ten thousand miles from home, watching a number of cities get burned up by a bunch of protestors [garbled] but they had the right to say anything they wanted. They were in a capital building, all over the United States, saying a whole lot of worse things, burning that flag.
This is merely confusion and has no application to this situation. Those who protested against the Vietnam war did so for a number of reasons, many of which have proven to be very valid concerns. Flag burning was held by the Supreme Court to be protected under the First Amendment because no person or their property was harmed. Where protestors crossed that line, they were no longer permitted to protest but were arrested and jailed. Smith’s attempt to associate this situation with the protests of the Vietnam era is either simple misdirection or it is an indication that Smith is himself very confused.
The protestors did not hold a position of responsibility in the government – Smith does and is to be held to a different standard. When he sits as the chairman of the board, he is not entitled to personally threaten anyone. This situation is much more comparable to a frustrated policeman wanting to shoot a drug dealer who has evaded justice than to rebellious protestors against government action. The mere fact that we, the Girrards, are not criminals in any sense makes Smith’s attitudes most disturbing.
When rogue bureaucrats (who think they have the right to use implied threats of arson whenever they don’t like something) wrap themselves in and hide behind the flag, that is mere hypocrisy. There are far worse looking houses in Lincoln, more intrusive against the district’s purported loyalty to the Territorial period (of which L.M. Smith’s is one of the worst offenders) and/or in much worse condition than our house and yet Smith has had nothing to say about those.
We are not protesting the American way of life nor even the American government – we are protesting against those who have taken authority unto themselves that is prohibited by and antagonistic to the American way of life. We are protecting the flag and what it stands for even as Smith uses it as a filthy rag.
If Smith (as he claims) actually served in Vietnam and he thinks that he was over there to defend his right to threaten and oppress his neighbors, he missed the whole point of service in the U.S. military.
Millions of Americans have willingly sacrificed their lives so that others could have individual liberty and personal freedom. Not one single American has even once given their life for Lincoln’s illusion of historicity nor its version of Nazi and Soviet styled socialism. Someone found something that some people valued more than they valued individual liberty and personal freedom and has concocted a way to “legally” separate them from their inalienable rights. Historicity (especially the false façade of historicity practiced in Zone B) is a poor substitute for the individual liberty and personal freedom so many Americans have sacrificed their lives for. Theft of these rights, whether legalized or not, is still immoral and wrong and it is an outrage to defile so many American patriots’ sacrifice in this manner. In Lincoln, our American birthright has been sold so that a few measly dollars can be deposited in the pockets of a few specially privileged elitists who have manipulated the law to their benefit and to the detriment of others.
Smith stands as the chairman of an elitist, socialistic board that oppresses and harasses his neighbors and yet he derides as mere flag burners those who oppose his attempt to secure his own personal petty fiefdom in Lincoln. That’s rich. ROTFLOL
Smith: And so I said a truthful statement in my mind, maybe inappropriately, maybe even tacky, but it was truthful.
It was inappropriate. It was tacky. But it was not truthful. It was Smith’s opinion and nothing more than that. And any person who has this opinion about anyone in the district should not be a member of the historical board and certainly not its chairman!
Smith: And it was not ugly.
Our children think otherwise. We think otherwise. A lot of people who have heard what Smith, as board chairman, said, think otherwise. What Smith has said is very ugly. That Smith can envision the burning down of anyone’s home and not think it ugly is an indicator of the need for Smith to be removed and retired permanently from the board. Smith has been called on the carpet by the county commissioners before and Smith used the excuse that he didn’t pick the people but the county enforcement did. (January 2018 LHPB meeting) This time he personally picked us, the Girrards, and issued an implied threat that since we didn’t live up to his expectations for his district, we should be burned out. This is very ugly and that Smith cannot recognize how ugly it really is is most disturbing.
Smith: It was just a truthful statement. And I thought, it’s a sad day that we have morphed to “1984,” George Orwell, so that now, political correct people take a statement and make it terrible.
This is rich! Smith, the chairman of the Soviet and Nazi styled historical board, accuses us of being politically correct! That is so comical! No one who knows us would ever accuse us of being politically correct! In fact, in Lincoln, it is the historicals who are the politically correct. So yes, we agree that it is a sad day that we have morphed into “1984” where those in power can present whatever “facts” they want no matter how untrue they are! Smith and Elaine Allen’s “ministry of truth” sure showed up for this meeting!
Smith: It’s not terrible.
Our children think otherwise. We think otherwise. A lot of people who have heard what Smith, as board chairman, said, think otherwise. What Smith has said is very terrible. That Smith can envision the burning down of anyone’s home and not think it terrible is an indicator of the need for Smith to be removed and retired permanently from the board. We are quite certain that Smith would consider it terrible if someone in a position of power said such a thing about his home and family!
Smith: It might have been tacky and it was probably inappropriate but that’s it. It’s not worth shooting the messenger. Thank you.
It was tacky. It was inappropriate. But it deserves more than a “That’s ok. After all, boys will be boys and all, you know.” The county’s reaction has put a stamp of approval on bureaucrats making threats against people they personally believe to be a problem. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a real problem or an imagined one, Vigilante Smith is now approved to be the messenger for the county. And the apparent message is that arson is now a valid solution in the historical district.
Note this well, however. If we, the Girrards, took up this mantra – after all, there’s a neighbor down the road we might not like and we don’t like the oppression and tyranny of the board, so, hey, since arson is now approved… If we took up this mantra, we’d be jailed quickly and rightly so. No!!! Arson is not acceptable and anyone who starts making noises that it is should be slapped down and reminded that arson is still a crime!
Nor are we advocating for “shooting the messenger.” We only believe that someone with such tacky, inappropriate, delusional, ugly and terrible opinions toward their neighbors should not be the chairman of the neighborhood historical board! Execution seems like too extreme a remedy but permanent removal from the board is completely appropriate. Smith’s artful dodging of taking responsibility for his wrongful attitudes is simply an indication of the need for Smith’s permanent removal.
The only question that remains now is how much damage will he do before he is stopped.