The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

If Bundy Had Married His Cattle, Lefties’d Celebrate “Diversity” #BundyRanch

Posted on | April 20, 2014 | 18 Comments

by Smitty

Stacy had picked up this story a couple of days ago, when the BLM backed down. For now. Per ABC:

A group of armed militia and protesters, some sporting nametags reading “domestic terrorist,” remain camped out on a cattle ranch in Nevada, where they have been purportedly defending the property since a tense showdown ended with the federal government last week. A 20-year struggle between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over decades of alleged illegal cattle grazing on public land ended last Sunday, with the government backing down from a controversial week-long cattle round-up.

Harry Reid was his usual conciliatory self, as Instapundit notes:

Yes, Protestors at Bundy Ranch Were ‘Domestic Terrorists.’ That’s a lie, but it’s a dangerous one, since it seems to pre-justify government violence while egging on tension. That’s unwise. If they decide to actually become domestic terrorists, Harry, I expect you’ll be among the first to know.

for which standard Ed Driscoll offered a more thorough test:

We’ll know they’re domestic terrorists when Rolling Stone runs dreamily-lit photos of them on their cover, Robert Redford makes a movie about them, and an ambitious young leftwing politician launches his career in their front parlor.

The ‘terrorist’ line suggests a couple of gags:

 

Could Bundy himeslf make a worse Senator than Elizabeth Warren?

Can that mighty herd displace Harry Reid in the Virtuoso Crapflooding department?

Clearly, Bundy is a proxy for all Tea Partiers. This is really all about flogging the base in preparation for November. The rule of law is at stake in this case, as noted at Powerline:

. . .the question of whether Bundy and/or his supporters would be justified in engaging in armed resistance if the federal government attempts to carry out the court orders with which they disagree.

I say that armed resistance would be wrong. As John explained, “legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on.” Legally, he is required to pay the grazing fee and limit the grazing of his cattle. His claim that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question is simply wrong and has been rejected by the courts.

Bundy can refuse to pay the grazing fee, just as I can refuse to pay my taxes. But in a nation governed by the rule of law, non-compliance with the law has consequences. Armed resistance to those consequences is, as I say, wrong.

It would be great to try to connect Bundy to Rosa Parks, but I don’t see much overlap. No, this is clearly about distracting from the failure of ObamaCare, and prepping the troops for November.
Thus, let the conservatives be more energized, and let Reid be hoisted on his own foul petard in the next Congress.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • maniakmedic

    Maybe I’m misremembering, but didn’t we start a little war called the American Revolution over unjust laws? Unjust laws that were far less pernicious than what is currently being foisted on the American public for whatever reason the government thinks will placate us into bowing down and letting the chains be placed around our necks.

  • Kirby McCain

    Our gutless MSM’s disinterest in Harry Reid’s personal involvement. Reid the poster boy for power for the sake of power. I’m sure the call is out to Eric “The Broom” holder.

  • https://twitter.com/AnaMyID Anamika

    Unlike then, now you live in a democracy.

    Amusing to watch many wingers go totally nuts over the Bundy situation.

  • daleyrocks

    If they were illegal immigrant cattle coming to America to join their families and graze happily without fear of the tyranny they faced in their homelands, the left would be flocking to Bundy’s side!

  • maniakmedic

    Ignorance really must be bliss if you can say such idiotic things so self assuredly. Oh, btw, we don’t live in a democracy. What we live in, while a pale shadow of it’s former self, is a constitutional republic.

  • https://twitter.com/AnaMyID Anamika

    Nobody said you live in a “pure democracy” or “mob rule”, that would be stupid. You live in a “representative democracy”, which is no different from the constitutional republic as practiced in the USA.

    Bundy supporters are in good company with the OWS folks in their disrespect of the laws.

  • Pingback: Bundy Ranch Standoff Update Plus Sunday Links

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    If one of the leftist (or conservative, for that matter) apologists for BLM and the Dictatorship of the Nomenklatura can explain to me how it is that they consider cattle grazing on open land a “threat” to the tortoise, but the development of subdivisions by Reid cronies not a threat, I will consider their argument. Until then, they are just vermin nibbling at the edges of the grain store.

    The fact is BLM or any other government agency does NOTHING AT ALL to maintain or manage these lands except to ensure their profitability for cronies of the powerful. That’s not what the federal government is supposed to be doing with “public lands.”

    This is mere cronyism and diversion of public assets for private benefit. If you support BLM, you have to be an authoritarian at the least.

  • maniakmedic

    Holy shit, you’re actually equating the Bundy supporters with the OWS dipshits? Your IQ must lie somewhere between non-existent and whale shit.

  • maniakmedic

    Too bad idiots like Anamika don’t understand this. Then again, scratch a leftist and you’ll find some flavor of authoritarian, so it doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

  • Wombat_socho

    Much like the old saw about squares and rectangles, all constitutional republics are representative democracies, but not all representative democracies are constitutional republics. The best example of this is the UK, whose Parliament is not restrained by any written law but solely by tradition and the Queen, if she dares exercise what little power she has left.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    So…under Paul Mirengoff’s logic, the men at Concord and Lexington would have been in the wrong.

    There is a moment when compliance with the Law becomes no longer tenable. When the enforcers of the Law no longer obey The Rule Of Law, when they trample on those Rights which come to us from God, when they cease to be servants and assume the role of Tyrants, then that moment has come.

    Those of use who are fighting to restore our Freedoms and Liberties have been seeking gentle means of redress, but, when the government employs harsh and fierce means to enforce Tyranny then we have the Right, nay, the Duty, to resist it.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Just a ‘flavor’?

  • Dianna Deeley

    Er, representative republic. Democracy is, in its pure form, mob rule. Or rule by the baying pack, anyway. In any case, not how I choose to be governed.

  • Rosalie

    Well said. Even Judge Scalia agrees:
    “But if reaches certain point, perhaps you should revolt,” Scalia advised the young man.

  • Pingback: On When To Resist Tyranny | The Camp Of The Saints