Jeffrey asked yesterday why I wasn’t writing about the “standoff” in Oregon. Well, let’s see. First off, I really do not care all that much. These are some foolish people trying to make a point, yet the people they are supposedly making a point over want them to stop. There’s no doubt that there are some harsh, and seemingly inconsistent, penalties being placed on the Hammonds. There’s no doubt that it should disturb everyone how much land out west the federal government owns. There’s no doubt that federal agencies like BLM have always ruled with a heavy hand. The feds are constantly adding new rules and regulations and penalties, taking more land, causing problems for the folks who live out west.
But, these “militia” who took over the building could have done it better. Leave the guns at home. That’s not to say that they can’t have them, or that there’s anything wrong with them, but the optics of having them guaranteed that the focus of the leftist media would be on the guns, rather than on the complaints.
That said, are they engaged in the 1st Amendment right to “protest peaceably”? They took over an unused building in the middle of nowhere. No one is making threats. No one is trashing the place. Or damaging it. IMO, the best thing would be to simply ignore them. No big police presence. No standoffs. Leave them along and they’ll go away. the White House wisely calls this a “local matter”.
My only real interest in this is the double standard as pushed by the liberal media and Leftists. Consider how the media and leftists portrayed protests in Wisconsin. Did they highlight the millions in damage to the State house? Or the filth? The feces? No, it was pretty much fawning coverage and support, all while these protesters interrupted state business.
How about in Ferguson? The most folks on the left could do was give a little “tsk, tsk” as the “protesters” became violent, looting stores, burning buildings, firing guns, fighting, assaulting police officers. Made threats. We saw something similar in Baltimore and other places.
How about the entire Occupy movement? The main demonstration in NYC featured the need for safe spaces within the park to protect women from being raped. There were murders, stabbings, and assaults. Fighting. People defecating on police cars and people’s doorsteps. Damaging property. In other areas, Occupiers were charged with violence, including intention to blow up a bridge. Were they called out on this by the same people who are calling the militia in Oregon “terrorists”? Saying they should be shot and killed? Blown up? Of course not.
Look at the USA Today Editorial Board
Nevada rancher Ammon Bundy proclaimed Monday to a crowd of TV cameras and reporters that he and a small group of armed followers had taken over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon to “restore and defend the Constitution.â€
The trouble with Bundy’s patriotic sounding claim is that the Constitution stands for the rule of law — which Bundy and his crew are breaking. They have no right to take over the federally owned Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The protesters, some armed, show their blatant disregard not just for the nation’s laws but also for the danger they have created.
Interestingly, the Founders rather did the same thing. Took up arms against the Government. And used them. These guys aren’t using them.
But, it’s instructive how suddenly we’re supposed to Follow The Law when it’s a protest that doesn’t follow the Leftist Narrative. Perhaps a Leftist could explain this double standard?
Bill Ayers and the SDS are heroes to the PC crowd.
Wait for it.
Soon an appearance by a little whiny bitch pontificating endlessly about white right-wing extremist terroristic insurrectionist bigoted gun-toting bible-thumping racist conservative Obama hating climate change denying Trump loving abortion hating xenophobic treasonous unpatriotic backwards thinking beer drinking Confederate flag-waving pickup driving redneck peckerwoods who wish to re-enslave all black people on welfare and nuke all muslims and gubmint officials…
Because science and stuff.
Yep.
The court’s verdict was arson, not an accident, based on testimony from witnesses. The initial sentence violated the minimum sentencing law and was corrected by the courts.
Yeah, this bunch is similar to the founding fathers.
The court initially sentenced them to shorter stays, 3 months for dad and 1 year for son. After they served, they were ordered back to jail after serving their original sentences. Do you find this fair, Jeff? I don’t. I’d think it was unfair if this happened to you.
Second, I find it interesting that Leftists are advocating for sentencing reform, and are cheering how Obama is letting drug dealers, many of them with violent histories who pleaded to lesser crimes, out of jail.
What do you think the Founders would have been called in today’s media?
This is symptomatic of the over reach of the Federal government and the errosion of our freedom. Hopefully, it will get worse and we can have a chance for secession when people have had enough. Then we will get our freedom back.
The courts thought the original sentence was actually illegal. Are you against minimum sentencing? I am. I think we should give judges discretion. If it were up to me I’d have let them serve the original sentences. Unfortunately for these arsonists the original judge violated the sentencing rules. It’s the law.
It would be unfair for me since I’m not a convicted criminal.
Here’s a heartbreaking interview with one of the misguided souls in Oregon. Since the leaders of this insurgency are Mormons (one leader calls himself Captain Moroni), is this an act of religious jihad by a potentially violent Christianist sect?
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/oregon-militant-vows-to-die-before-being-arrested-as-feds-move-to-end-occupation/
Is he right? Does a citizen have the right to shoot a police officer who draws a weapon to serve an arrest warrant? If this were a Black man in Greensboro holding a rifle, and an officer moved to arrest him, should the officer(s) lay down their weapons?