I don’t like an unrestrained government marking any rule they like. I would like even less a unrestrained government in open warfare. The images coming from war torn countries are not the images we need here.
I don’t know what the answer is, though I do not believe it’s “sit back and do nothing.” What Bundy’s son and his group are doing MAY be just the answer – as long as the report in the Examiner is just the media building up the story in a sensational manner (not that the media, and particularly the Examiner, would ever do that!).
“FEDERAL Building!” Oh, come on. That evokes an image of a big office building like the Murrah Federal Building, or any other large FedGov facility in some large city. This is Burns, Oregon. And this is a CLOSED little building at a national wildlife refuge. And there is far more to the story than is being generally reported, because it’s not just a sensational story about a father and son torching something, being charged with arson, and people are trying to keep them from facing justice.
Think 60s lunch counter sit-in demonstrations. As a society we CELEBRATE those civil rights sit-ins. But the press back then often simply told stories about groups of unruly blacks taking over private businesses and not allowing others to come in to eat, thereby potentially driving the restaurant owners out of business. True, but only one slant on the story. This is a SIT-IN – 60s style! What’s the difference?
The “rest of the story” is that the father and son were charged under anti-terrorism laws for something that they at least CLAIM they were doing to safely clear land of overgrowth. Right or wrong, I have no idea. But they were convicted, the son did a year, and the father did 3 months of time. They were released. THEN a federal judge decided they hadn’t done ENOUGH time, so he ordered them back to prison. They went through the appeals process, lost, and were planning to go report for their additional 4-year sentences tomorrow – peacefully. Cliven Bundy’s son (the father isn’t even part of the story, except that the media has tried to make him part of it) organized a protest march in town, and then a take over of the little facility at the closed wildlife refuge, planning to stay there a “long time,” years if necessary.
I’ve read multiple stories on this, but one of the surprising sources of what appears to be relatively accurate reporting is USA Today. It summarizes much of what I’ve gotten in other stories so far – but as usual, you have to read all the way to the bottom in order to get “the rest of the story,” after having already been stirred up by the sensationalism.
IF accurate, and IF the occupiers aren’t heavily armed and hoping for a shoot-out with the feds, I don’t see this as playing into the feds’ hands. It’s a lunch-counter sit in, 21st century style. The feds MAY be the ones to make it into something entirely different.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."