Profile photo of

Just got home finally, and only had a few minutes on line to post my previous comments before leaving. I watched the “news” on several channels, but for the most part all that was on was the Sunday “news” magazine talk-talk shows. CNN did cover this story for several minutes, and though obviously slanted, they did provide some interesting additional information. But they certainly did take the opportunity to include MULTIPLE commercials for the upcoming “Guns in America” broadcast later this week when The Executive Orderer-in-Chief will meet with carefully, hand picked, but otherwise {choke!} ordinary citizens, and “listen” to the American people about “Guns in America”. But regardless of that, they frequently included in one of their split-screen images, men in heavy winter clothing, in the dark, OUTSIDE, around a fire to keep warm – those were the “occupiers” and it was the land they are occupying as part of the protest. Agree with their principle(s) or not, agree with the manner in which they chose to demonstrate it or not, but suddenly this has been downgraded to NOT a “FEDERAL BUILDING!!!” and is what it really is – basically a 60s style sit in. And I cannot find anywhere, so far, where the occupiers have termed themselves as “militia” members. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t – I just can’t find it. Yet all I see is the media blaring out the word “MILITIA,” and I’m propelled back in time to the days of JJ Johnson and his cohorts testifying to Senators Feinstein, Specter, et al, at the Senate militia hearings after OKC. Plus, the “reportedly heavily armed” story has dwindled down to “may be” with a single quote by Ammon Bundy himself in which he said they planned to be there a “long time,” and WHEN ASKED, he said that if they were attacked, they would defend themselves. Yes, and who wouldn’t?

The media has created their desired impression in the minds of the viewers, and first impressions are the lasting ones – especially with the low-information crowd that shows up at the polling booths after watching the unbiased, objective NEWS on their TV screens. Regardless of whatever else happens with this story, another log has been tossed into the fire to help stoke it – i.e. “the people” now know that the militia is still out there, still ready for a bloody takeover of the U.S. government, yada, yada, yada. And “everyone” will certainly agree with the logic, yes, the necessity of keeping those nasty assault weapons out of the hands of these crazy folks that are lurking all around “out there.” If you haven’t looked at the comprehensive list of specific weapons in that new legislation, DO SO! It’s virtually any/everything. And the definition of an “assault weapon” isn’t something we haven’t heard before – but now it’s in introduced federal legislation with well over 100 co-sponsors. Will it pass THIS round? Of course not. But as was said above, give us a solidly Democrat government (President, Congress, + a solidly liberal set of Supremes), it’s either “on” or it’s over – probably both, and in that order.

Oh – and the other thing I had to laugh at (only because of the predictable absurdity of it, not because it’s truly light hearted) is the fact that the stories I do see, whether on line or on TV, have almost ALL had Cliven Bundy’s photo emblazoned at the top (or beginning) of the story. He’s not even involved, and isn’t even in agreement with the method his son chose! I understand the association that is of news interest, given that THIS organizer is related to the central figure in an OLD story in Nevada, but that should qualify for 3rd or 4th paragraph mention, MAYBE with a photo of the elder Bundy down that far only – NOT making it appear that “Cliven Bundy Is At It Again!!!!” (my sarcastic take on the media coverage, not a real headline)

This is a manufactured media event. Unfortunately, I believe this is a highly likely way an armed conflict could indeed start – the media promoting a false story that gets hair-trigger right wingers all fired up before they know the facts, and possibly in connection with an intentional government “response” to a manufactured event, and it all mushrooms out of control. But IF that becomes the case, it will not be “out of control” at all – that would have been the carefully coordinated plan all along, just like news “leaks” from politicians (that deny them) are intentionally placed with their co-conspirators in the media, to create a story that will compel action (or seem to).

I don’t know if the younger Bundy played into anyone’s hands or not. Frankly, I believe that almost ANY civil disobedience – once a celebrated means of change in this country (but only by certain groups, in certain cases) – can and will be misrepresented intentionally and by plan, to justify and generate an over-the-top government crackdown. So regardless, it’s either cave in or let all hell break loose, it would seem. The “right” thing to do, though, is to very carefully choose and plan the action, weighing ALL of the consequences. I’d personally favor no armed massive conflict, devolving into the chaos we see in so many other countries. And I also recognize that as an unfortunate possibility regardless.

2¢ + 3%