Read Modern Survival Blogs take on this here.
My thoughts.
I believe both sides, civilians and certain federal agencies want a flash point for both resistance and a crack down.
Another thing that I find disturbing is how quickly and easily it seems for State and Local Law Enforcement to fall into line with the Feds. They always talk about being part of the community but in the end they always salute and get in line.
What should alarm the feds??? People from around the country are heading that way. This can get messy unless people get smart...otherwise we're looking at the next Waco.
I remember it didn't go to well with the initial Waco LE assault crew who under-estimated their opponent and paid dearly for it. This action doesn't look good. Andy Griffith (wearing no gun) could probably have pointed out steps A, B and C to the farmers and convinced them that there are other ways to deal with this. But here, militarized law enforcement, don't see the need to explain themselves, they just show up with all the toys and GI JOE gear and intimidate. I suspect one could do a civil suit (avoiding any specific agency) directed right at the specific LEO that said such a thing about free speech and see how that pans out.
ReplyDeleteThis ain't gona end well and I fear, their will be blood on someone's hands
ReplyDeleteeh, it's not that different from Occupy protesters who block Sheriff Deputies from foreclosing on homes.
ReplyDeleteI would think that some smart LE would have read Boyd and realized there is a moral level of conflict. Goliath might enjoy the enviable position of having every advantage to justify his behavior: legal, financial, etc., but at the end of the day, Goliath is still Goliath and nobody roots for him (except other Goliaths). David might be on the wrong side of the law or even a douche, but people are suckers for the underdog. There is a moral strength in David's weakness.
Look at David Koresh. Weirdo, religious cult leader, but people felt sorry for the dumb bastard esp when the Feebs laid siege with an Army and torched his place.
It is safer for them to attack law abiding Americans than say Mexican drug cartels. If they went after the latter somebody could get hurt and that would lead to the Fed's getting sued. Joke. Not.
ReplyDeleteIt is disturbing that the more equipment and more militarised US law enforcement becomes the less inclined they are to go after criminals.
Imagine those resources spending a week hurled against a gang in the LA Basin. Imagine the good the good that would do. Imagine how that would shake the morale of the small time gangsta. Imagine how much of a boost it would give to local LE. But no go after farmers. Heck they are deploying more than went to support those unfortunates in Benghazi.
extremely well said. additionally they'd have the support of ALL the American people but instead they further divide us with bullshit like this.
DeleteSo these were not local agencies they were Feds and by what I saw they never got backup from the locals.
ReplyDeleteNow I watched the interview about the legal situation on Fox before this happened and it seems stupid what the BLM is doing. I did read they stopped paying the graze fee to use the land, but it really sounds like this is environmentalism gone nuts.
The following is based on available info and not in support of what the BLM is doing.
By what CNN reported the violent portion of the video began when Bundy advanced on the Feds and the dog being held back by his handler was kicked. In about every state an assault on a k9 is taken as an assault on an officer and a felony. I do give it to them for their restraint in not forcing a much larger confrontation as watching the crowd while Bundy was being tased 5 could have been taken to jail for interference. If they would have forced the issue this could have gotten much worse.
Though I have never heard of k9 units being used as crowd control. Also I hate the Feds using endangered or protected species to keep people from using land. Hasn't over 90% of what has lived on this planet become extinct?
Actually, more than 95% of what has lived has gone extinct; however, that is a very weak argument against the importance of biodiversity. It would be like arguing that 80% of the population of the eastern US do not own guns, so why care about the remaining 20%--get rid of their guns too.
Delete